On 9/7/21 10:41 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 12:51:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/7/21 7:58 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 9:34:07 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/21 6:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Harshman and Oxyaena and Simpson are rotten role models, but you seem
>>>>> to be emulating them here. What follows is more of the same:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip of self-and-Simpson-and-Oxyaena-serving comments by yourself>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It will be interesting to see his reaction, if any, to THIS post.
>>>
>>>> Well, at least that served some kind of purpose and wasn't an insult. My
>>>> reaction is that your comments on vaccines were on topic and largely
>>>> correct.
>>>
>>> I think they were more correct in some places than yours. What makes you think that the
>>> following is true?
>>>
>>> "And your immune system gets nothing from a live virus that it doesn't
>>> get from the spike protein alone."
>
>> What makes you think it isn't true? The spike protein is the antigen
>> that the immune system reacts to.
>
> Where did you pick up this counterintuitive information? The protein coat
> is made up of more than just the spike protein, isn't it?

Yes, but it's the spike protein that sticks out and is therefore
accessible to antibodies.

> For sure, the mRNA of the spike protein is just a small part of the RNA of single-strand genome of the
> coronavirus. The bulk of it is devoted to something I've never seen in any other
> organism: a coding for an enzyme that duplicates RNA directly. I've long known of
> transcriptase, reverse transcriptase, and DNA polymerase, but never before
> of RNA polymerase.

To be specific, RNA-templated RNA polymerase. DNA-tempated RNA
polymerase is of course ubiquitous.

> It even raises questions about its origin. I have rejected any speculation that
> it is a relict from RNA world [can you guess why?] and instead believe that it arose
> by a mutation of one of the three classes of enzymes that I'd known about.
>
> By the way, I thought for a long time that reverse transcriptase is only known from
> retroviruses, but I've seen reports recently that claim it is coded for in the human genome.

I have nothing to add here.

>> That's why vaccines are effective.
>
> I'm surprised to see you use such simplistic logic; it confuses necessary and sufficient conditions.

Sure. There could conceivably be some other protein that could act as an
antigen. But do you know of any? It would have to be something exposed
on the exterior of the viral coat.

>>> This was from your parallel reply to Mario. I do not understand what you mean by
>>> "gets nothing." Do you imagine that whole of the damage wrought by
>>> Covid-19 is due to the spike protein alone? [1] or that the only antibodies the body
>>> produces against the live virus are targeted at the spike protein and no other
>>> part of the virus?
>
>> Your first question is irrelevant, as damage is not the topic. For the
>> second question, I think that's likely true. It's what is exposed on the
>> surface. Are there other antigens also targeted? What do you know about
>> that?

I ask again.

>>> [1] That would be grist for the mill of the anti-vaxxers who focus the greatest of their ire
>>> on mRNA vaccines. Of course, they would be under the spell of the most toxic
>>> piece of disinformation of all, that the mRNA would multiply and spread over all of your
>>> cells, but they will gladly take any crumb of support that comes their way, even from
>>> anti-anti-vaxxers like you and me.
>
>> This would seem to be a footnote without a referent.
>
> What part of "... due to the spike protein alone? [1]" didn't you understand?

Oh, sorry. Didn't find it. Why, then, is that grist for the anti-vaxxer
mill? Still don't get it. Unless it's you making up a problem I didn't
mention and attributing it to me. Again, nothing I said says that the
damage caused by the virus can be attributed to the spike protein. If it
were, there would be no point in vaccinations. Wherever did you get that?

>> What would be
>> grist? What support for anti-vaxxers? Is it something I said?
>>>> Mario will not be budged. It would help (well, no, nothing would actually help)
>>>> to illuminate more of his inconsistencies.
>>>
>>> I intend to do so in any case, and also to show how mistaken he is about
>>> some pretty important things that you didn't try to show him being mistaken about.
>
> An example was Mario's sophomoric claims about "survival of the fittest."
> Dealt with by me after I posted the above.

One has only so much time.

>>> Let me be the judge of whether it helps or not.
>
>> Sure. Your experience will be instructive. I will just take the
>> opportunity to predict that nothing you do will change his view.
>
> Understood.
>
>
>>>> For example, he opposed injected vaccines and asked why they aren't
>>>> swallowed, but in fact he opposes oral vaccines too, so that entire
>>>> argument was a distraction, probably made up on the spur of the moment,
>>>> and without regard to coherence. At such times he does assume a trollish
>>>> aspect.
>>>
>>> Did you bother to read what I wrote about the very thing you are talking about here?
>> Yes.
>>> It was specifically designed to see whether he keeps sliding down the slippery slope
>>> or whether he sobers up and tries to get back on track. General comments like
>>> yours above do not tend to impose such choices on the people they are designed
>>> to nudge in the right direction.
>
>> There is no nudging, as it assumes that the target is capable of being
>> moved.
>
> I put the last clause in the wrong place. I had in mind the nudging I was doing,
> and should have realized that you never wrote anything like your general comment
> in reply to Mario.

?

>> Good luck.
>
>
>>> Mario, of course, might choose the wrong direction, but he is not such a known
>>> quantity to me as you and two others that I named are -- the two others whose
>>> names I have put into a hyphenated phrase at the top.
>>> I am still trying to get the hang of Mario's *modus operandi*, hence all the trouble to which I am going for him.
>
>> Sure. You have fun with that.
>
> I will. It is always good to know where individuals are coming from -- something one of your allies
> pretended not to believe in talk.origins, then soon revealed that he did very much believe it.

Your gratuitous insult fails to mention the name of the offender. I
consider that progress. The next step is failing to put in the
gratuitous insult at all.

On 7.9.2021. 20:29, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 1:07:04 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 7.9.2021. 17:42, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> I am short on time, so in this second reply I can only spare the time for three isolated
>>> issues where you seem to imagine that you know a lot more than I do.
>>>
>>> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 7.9.2021. 3:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:47:13 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 22:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And it is nothing like the permanent damage to your lungs or liver you
>>>>> could get from Covid-19. You can read about some of the grisly possibilities here,
>>>>> as well as the jarring statistic you can read already from the url (95 means 95%):
>>>>>
>>>>> https://theconversation.com/at-my-hospital-over-95-of-covid-19-patients-share-one-thing-in-common-theyre-unvaccinated-166708#_=_
>>>
>>>> I don't know people, do you read at all, about Covid-19 illness?
>>>
>>> Do you? it seems that you have totally ignored the very title of the long and
>>> hard-hitting article that I have linked for you. Obviously, you never read it.
>
>> No, I didn't read it. I did read the title, which says that 95 % of
>> people in hospitals aren't vaccinated.
>
> Not quite. It says over 95% of Covid-19 patients in hospitals aren't vaccinated.
> These are the Covid-19 cases that are so severe, they require hospitalization.
>
> And yet, at least half of the people in the USA [1] have been vaccinated by now.
> That should tell you something about the effectiveness of the vaccine.
>
> [1] Alas, the rest of the world is mostly much worse off, because the richer countries are selfishly
> hoarding the vaccine. A month ago, some of the poorer countries had only 1.3% vaccinated.
> That was one of the comments I made to the article.]

I am discussing the effectiveness of vaccination, not the
effectiveness of a specific vaccine.
For example, my point would be that, if we didn't have vaccination
before, this whole mess wouldn't happen at all. So, nobody would have
severe symptoms.

> >The title says what's in article.
>
> In fact, it says only a tiny smidgin of what's in the article, and you would
> know that if you had read it. Do you ever read anything besides titles and headlines?

Oh, I do. But I never read the whole internet. Although, when I just
started to read newspapers (as a kid) I used to read them whole, from
the first page to the last, every word, just to understand what's inside.
But, today, to read some article, I need to have a reason. What would
be a reason to read this particular article? I didn't find one, maybe I
missed something? You, also, didn't point to the reason in this post,
although you are insisting that I read it. I don't know why you are
insisting, and you don't want to say why. I'll be glad to read it all
through, if I have a good reason.
For example, I mentioned why I didn't read it. Because you thought
that I thought that I was afraid of vaccination damaging the body, and
you showed this article in that context. This is how I am seeing that
article (and I am not afraid of that, so there is no reason for this
article to convince me in something I am already convinced in). But you
are saying that there is something apart from that. Actually, you are
not even saying that, you are not saying anything at all.

>> Your point is that I think that vaccination is dangerous. No, I don't
>> think that the danger is imminent, and that it causes some damage to
>> body. So, why would I read it?
>
> Because it is not about the damage the vaccine does,
> but about the far worse damage that the disease does.
> You would know that if you had read it.

But, I know that, too. I know about the damage that the disease does.
I am afraid you didn't understand what I am talking about. You think
that I don't know what damage disease does. I know, it is great damage.
But, you don't know about the damage I am talking about. I am talking
about the extinction. Not about the extinction of mammoths, or of
sabre-toothed cats, but about the extinction of humans.
And, you are saying that the damage that virus is doing is great. Yes,
I know that. The damage that the next *mild* virus will inflict will be
even greater. *Because* we are doing vaccination against viruses.
This is like if an alcoholic is taking his first drink of the day to
calm down his nerves. And, you are saying to me that this drink is
beneficial, because it calms down his nerves. Well, because he is
drinking, he has damaged nerves in the first place. And this first drink
that will "calm" his nerves down will destruct his nerves even more.

>> If the article says that it doesn't
>> damage body, well, I agree with this.
>
> If you had read the article, you would have to agree that the disease can
> cause terrible damage to the body.
>
> Yet you would still refuse to be vaccinated, wouldn't you? Why?

See above, :) .

>>>> It is NOT caused by the virus.
>>>
>>> Is your authority for this the usual "They say"? What makes you think that
>>> you haven't been duped by anti-vaxxer propaganda?
>
>> There wasn't amti-vaxxer propaganda yet (and, I don't read anti-vaxxer
>> propaganda, anyway, I don't go to Facebook, this forum, and the national
>> tv, is my only source of information.).
>
> Facebook has plenty of people spouting anti-vaxxer sentiments.
> But Facebook censors the worst of them, so it appears that it is
> the national tv is the source of the anti-vaxxer propaganda, "It is NOT caused by the virus. "

Not at all. Everything that Croatia does is tourism. Croatia cannot
live if tourists don't come. National tv is promoting vaccination like
mad. Every minute, every second. In fact, Croatia had excellent tourist
season this year because we (our seaside) stayed in "orange" whole
season, while the rest of Mediterranean was in "red". This is solely
because of massive effort by the government.

>> This was what experts found out
>> at the very beginning of the outbreak.
>
> Did you also see this on your national tv? Did they actually say who the "experts" were?

Yes, I saw this on national tv.

> I seriously doubt that there is anyone, including Dr. Fauci, who can be claimed
> to be an expert on the pandemic even NOW,
> so I would really like to know who these alleged "experts" were.

These days you will not see mentioned this anywhere. Because this
would feed anti-vaxxers, and the politics of every nation is to have
vaccination as large as possible.
For example, every day I see on national tv how Prime Minister talks
how he doesn't understand the reason for people not to take vaccination.
Yet, I never see on national tv somebody who would explain this to the
Prime Minister, if he really wants to know. Why do I see every day Prime
Minister talks how he doesn't understand the reason, and yet, I never
see somebody who explains the reason? I can explain to him my reason,
why nobody asks me?

>>> Is it that, as you were growing up, you realized that what the Communist government
>>> issued was full of lies, and uncritically believed everything that was critical of the government
>>> and widely asserted in the places you happen to have heard or read?
>>> And now you've carried this attitude over to all governments?
>
>> I knew that Communist propaganda is a lie since I was just a little
>> kid. Of course, I didn't figure out through all of the lies, but I
>> automatically assume that, whatever communists are saying is a lie.
>
> That's going too far in the opposite direction. I did too, for a long time,
> but I came to realize that some of it was true. For instance, the USA and Britain and France
> WERE imperialist countries, and the USA still is: that is at the base of the tragedy
> in Afghanistan, for instance.

Yes, you are right about that, I did realize this too. The other thing
is that I don't see things (including the Imperialism) as good, or as
bad. I may see them as smart, or as stupid. Of course, if you interpret
"smart" as good, or "stupid" as bad... But, that's another topic.

>> Regarding all governments, I figured out that science is rotten (not
>> so long ago, maybe not more than 10 years ago, but I noticed some
>> "funny" things since I was a kid, since I am following space research
>> from that age, and science was always wrong in this field of research,
>
> HUH???? are you one of the people who believe that all the moon landings
> were faked, as was the near-tragedy of Apollo 13?
>
> We did have someone like that in talk.origins for several years, who went
> by the nickname "eridanus" [His real name may have been Leopolodo Perdomo.]
> He was a Spaniard who, in many ways, reminded me of you.

I thought I was done with this thread for today, but I would like to call everyone's attention
to a remarkable pterosaur find, complete with many fine and fascinating
illustrations. Pandora reported on it ten days ago, and others seem to have
overlooked the thread besides myself until now. I did a post about an hour ago
which highlighted some of the features of the article that I thought would be of interest:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/SqialEOpviY/m/coCkwVYJAAAJ
Re: Exceptionally well-preserved tapejarid skeleton from Brazil

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:24:24 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/7/21 10:41 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Hitting only a few highlights:

> > For sure, the mRNA of the spike protein is just a small part of the RNA of single-strand genome of the
> > coronavirus. The bulk of it is devoted to something I've never seen in any other
> > organism: a coding for an enzyme that duplicates RNA directly. I've long known of
> > transcriptase, reverse transcriptase, and DNA polymerase, but never before
> > of RNA polymerase.

> To be specific, RNA-templated RNA polymerase. DNA-tempated RNA
> polymerase is of course ubiquitous.

Is that a synonym for transcriptase?

> > It even raises questions about its origin. I have rejected any speculation that
> > it is a relict from RNA world [can you guess why?] and instead believe that it arose
> > by a mutation of one of the three classes of enzymes that I'd known about.

This might still be a question of interest to specialists: which of the three
classes is it most likely to have arisen from?

<snip for focus>

> >>> This was from your parallel reply to Mario. I do not understand what you mean by
> >>> "gets nothing." Do you imagine that whole of the damage wrought by
> >>> Covid-19 is due to the spike protein alone? [1] or that the only antibodies the body
> >>> produces against the live virus are targeted at the spike protein and no other
> >>> part of the virus?

<snip>

> >>> [1] That would be grist for the mill of the anti-vaxxers who focus the greatest of their ire
> >>> on mRNA vaccines. Of course, they would be under the spell of the most toxic
> >>> piece of disinformation of all, that the mRNA would multiply and spread over all of your
> >>> cells, but they will gladly take any crumb of support that comes their way, even from
> >>> anti-anti-vaxxers like you and me.
> >
> >> This would seem to be a footnote without a referent.
> >
> > What part of "... due to the spike protein alone? [1]" didn't you understand?

> Oh, sorry. Didn't find it. Why, then, is that grist for the anti-vaxxer
> mill? Still don't get it.

I guess you haven't read as much of the scaremongering as I have. With only the
spike protein coded by the mRNA, it would be grist for their mill if all the damage
due to the virus [near-destroyed lungs, etc. and including death] is caused by the spike protein
and no other part of the virus.

The following piece of scaremongering is disturbingly reminiscent of something Mario believes:
the claim that as your immune system recognizes that a cell has been invaded by the spike protein
and/or mRNA, it will attack and destroy the cell. Together with the scaremongering about it
invading every cell of your body [impossible, for several good reasons] the inevitable outcome
[expressly stated by the originator of a lot of this scaremongering] is massive organ failure
leading to death.

What bothers me most of all is that the anti-vaxxers and the knowledgeable people
are almost completely sealed off from each other. The most knowledgeable scientists, who
could easily refute this rank pseudoscience, almost invariably refrain from mentioning
it for fear of "giving it legitimacy/publicity". And so the anti-vaxxers remain blissfully
unaware of the falsity of all this pseudoscience. I've made tiny little dents in their ignorance as best
I could, but it's a Sysyphean task.

> > I will. It is always good to know where individuals are coming from -- something one of your allies
> > pretended not to believe in talk.origins, then soon revealed that he did very much believe it.
> Your gratuitous insult fails to mention the name of the offender. I
> consider that progress. The next step is failing to put in the
> gratuitous insult at all.

People deserve to know what a minefield talk.origins is. Daud Deden posted briefly there at one point.
I welcomed him and congratulated him on attracting two of the best people there -- Andre Isaak
and Ernest Major -- and told him that he would do well to heed their advice on not to try
to extend the definition of "homologous" beyond the already confusing concept that it is.
He thanked me for explaining WHY it is confusing, and the thread ended well.

Others have not been so lucky. Ron Dean was so demoralized, after having gotten along tolerably well with
someone, when that someone made a thoroughly despicable attack on him, that
he seriously considered leaving talk.origins for good.

Perhaps you think so poorly of Ron Dean that you would have said "good riddance" if he had left,
like you said of the possibility of Ruben Safir leaving sci.bio.paleontology for good. But I think very
much more humanely of both of them, and I managed to reassure Ron that he shouldn't be
let down too much, now that he knows that the person in question does not post in good faith.

Peter Nyikos

On 9/7/21 3:20 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I thought I was done with this thread for today, but I would like to call everyone's attention
> to a remarkable pterosaur find, complete with many fine and fascinating
> illustrations. Pandora reported on it ten days ago, and others seem to have
> overlooked the thread besides myself until now. I did a post about an hour ago
> which highlighted some of the features of the article that I thought would be of interest:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/SqialEOpviY/m/coCkwVYJAAAJ
> Re: Exceptionally well-preserved tapejarid skeleton from Brazil
>
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:24:24 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 9/7/21 10:41 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Hitting only a few highlights:
>
>>> For sure, the mRNA of the spike protein is just a small part of the RNA of single-strand genome of the
>>> coronavirus. The bulk of it is devoted to something I've never seen in any other
>>> organism: a coding for an enzyme that duplicates RNA directly. I've long known of
>>> transcriptase, reverse transcriptase, and DNA polymerase, but never before
>>> of RNA polymerase.
>
>> To be specific, RNA-templated RNA polymerase. DNA-tempated RNA
>> polymerase is of course ubiquitous.
>
> Is that a synonym for transcriptase?

"Transcriptase" seems to be a general term for any RNA polymerase,
whatever the template.

>>> It even raises questions about its origin. I have rejected any speculation that
>>> it is a relict from RNA world [can you guess why?] and instead believe that it arose
>>> by a mutation of one of the three classes of enzymes that I'd known about.
>
> This might still be a question of interest to specialists: which of the three
> classes is it most likely to have arisen from?
>
> <snip for focus>

I have no idea. There is of course a fourth option, that it's an
independently evolved protein.

>>>>> This was from your parallel reply to Mario. I do not understand what you mean by
>>>>> "gets nothing." Do you imagine that whole of the damage wrought by
>>>>> Covid-19 is due to the spike protein alone? [1] or that the only antibodies the body
>>>>> produces against the live virus are targeted at the spike protein and no other
>>>>> part of the virus?
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>>> [1] That would be grist for the mill of the anti-vaxxers who focus the greatest of their ire
>>>>> on mRNA vaccines. Of course, they would be under the spell of the most toxic
>>>>> piece of disinformation of all, that the mRNA would multiply and spread over all of your
>>>>> cells, but they will gladly take any crumb of support that comes their way, even from
>>>>> anti-anti-vaxxers like you and me.
>>>
>>>> This would seem to be a footnote without a referent.
>>>
>>> What part of "... due to the spike protein alone? [1]" didn't you understand?
>
>> Oh, sorry. Didn't find it. Why, then, is that grist for the anti-vaxxer
>> mill? Still don't get it.
>
> I guess you haven't read as much of the scaremongering as I have. With only the
> spike protein coded by the mRNA, it would be grist for their mill if all the damage
> due to the virus [near-destroyed lungs, etc. and including death] is caused by the spike protein
> and no other part of the virus.

Sure. But you are the only person to suggest such a thing, so why bring
that up?

> The following piece of scaremongering is disturbingly reminiscent of something Mario believes:
> the claim that as your immune system recognizes that a cell has been invaded by the spike protein
> and/or mRNA, it will attack and destroy the cell. Together with the scaremongering about it
> invading every cell of your body [impossible, for several good reasons] the inevitable outcome
> [expressly stated by the originator of a lot of this scaremongering] is massive organ failure
> leading to death.

Oddly enough, that seems not to have happened. How does an anti-vaxxer
deal with that?

> What bothers me most of all is that the anti-vaxxers and the knowledgeable people
> are almost completely sealed off from each other. The most knowledgeable scientists, who
> could easily refute this rank pseudoscience, almost invariably refrain from mentioning
> it for fear of "giving it legitimacy/publicity". And so the anti-vaxxers remain blissfully
> unaware of the falsity of all this pseudoscience. I've made tiny little dents in their ignorance as best
> I could, but it's a Sysyphean task.

You assume that anti-vaxxers would credit anything a scientist said.
Aren't they more likely to reject contrary points out of hand?

>>> I will. It is always good to know where individuals are coming from -- something one of your allies
>>> pretended not to believe in talk.origins, then soon revealed that he did very much believe it.
>> Your gratuitous insult fails to mention the name of the offender. I
>> consider that progress. The next step is failing to put in the
>> gratuitous insult at all.
>
> People deserve to know what a minefield talk.origins is.

I see no reason they do, even if it were. Why not let them form their
own opinions if and when they ever went there?p0-----

> Daud Deden posted briefly there at one point.
> I welcomed him and congratulated him on attracting two of the best people there -- Andre Isaak
> and Ernest Major -- and told him that he would do well to heed their advice on not to try
> to extend the definition of "homologous" beyond the already confusing concept that it is.
> He thanked me for explaining WHY it is confusing, and the thread ended well.
>
> Others have not been so lucky. Ron Dean was so demoralized, after having gotten along tolerably well with
> someone, when that someone made a thoroughly despicable attack on him, that
> he seriously considered leaving talk.origins for good.
>
> Perhaps you think so poorly of Ron Dean that you would have said "good riddance" if he had left,
> like you said of the possibility of Ruben Safir leaving sci.bio.paleontology for good. But I think very
> much more humanely of both of them, and I managed to reassure Ron that he shouldn't be
> let down too much, now that he knows that the person in question does not post in good faith.

None of this is on topic for the thread or for sci.bio.paleontology.
None of it is useful information for anyone here. It's the very epitome
of gratuitous. Just stop, please.

On 9/7/2021 9:12 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> Harshman and Oxyaena and Simpson are rotten role models, but you seem
> to be emulating them here. What follows is more of the same:
>
>

As usual, you can't help but drag our names through the mud even as
you're "reprimanding" this Serbian Nazi.

>
>> So, why don't you create a sparring
>> partner for a boxer to train, instead using a live humans?
>
> This nonsense makes me wonder whether Erik Simpson was right to call you a troll.

Wow, it only took you a couple years to notice the blindingly obvious.
Kudos.

> He is a troll a great deal of the time himself, but as the old half-truth says,
> "It takes one to know one."

Says the king of the trolls.

>
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Do your employers know that you're dirtying their good name with this
gratuitous spam of yours?

>
> PS I see Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena is disappointed by the post to which you are replying,
> because I didn't reprimand you the way 'e was hoping I would. I suppose 'e will think
> that I still am not reprimanding you sufficiently. However, if you continue to deteriorate
> at the rate you are, perhaps his/her insatiable appetite for reprimands between
> people 'e hates with an unreasoning hatred will be temporarily appeased.

Ah yes, here you are flaunting off your uncanny ability to read minds
again. I must say, I have never seen a better psychic in my life.

Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am short on time, so in this second reply I can only spare the time for three isolated
> issues where you seem to imagine that you know a lot more than I do.
>
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 7.9.2021. 3:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:47:13 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 1.9.2021. 22:56, John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>> And it is nothing like the permanent damage to your lungs or liver you
>>> could get from Covid-19. You can read about some of the grisly possibilities here,
>>> as well as the jarring statistic you can read already from the url (95 means 95%):
>>>
>>> https://theconversation.com/at-my-hospital-over-95-of-covid-19-patients-share-one-thing-in-common-theyre-unvaccinated-166708#_=_
>
>> I don't know people, do you read at all, about Covid-19 illness?
>
> Do you? it seems that you have totally ignored the very title of the long and
> hard-hitting article that I have linked for you. Obviously, you never read it.
>
>
>> It is NOT caused by the virus.
>
> Is your authority for this the usual "They say"? What makes you think that
> you haven't been duped by anti-vaxxer propaganda?
>
> Is it that, as you were growing up, you realized that what the Communist government
> issued was full of lies, and uncritically believed everything that was
> critical of the government
> and widely asserted in the places you happen to have heard or read?
> And now you've carried this attitude over to all governments?
>
>
>> It is that, weak organisms are destroyed by our
>> immune system that lost its calibration.
>
> Be that as it may, I hope you realize that you are putting yourself at
> risk by not getting vaccinated.
> Don't imagine that you would be doing future generations a disservice by
> getting vaccinated.
> You said yourself that you are beyond the age of sexual indulgence.
>
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>
>> No, you didn't. You are under the impression that humans managed to
>> create some Supermen that fights viruses.
>
> This is a complete falsehood. I never said anything of the sort.
>
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>
>>>> They say that somebody who was ill and not vaccinated, and survived,
>>>> has 7 times better immunity than the one who was vaccinated.
>>>
>>> But please, note that he also could suffer terrible physical damage even if
>>> he survived. Fat lot of good any immunity will do him if he is an
>>> invalid for the rest of his life.
>
>> Of course. He can die, if he isn't fit. The fittest survive, anybody
>> of you ever gone to school, learning the basics of biology?
>
> I have, but it looks like you haven't: "survival of the fittest" is not a
> biological expression.
> It was coined by the non-biologist Herbert Spencer, who invented "social darwinism",
> one of whose worst expressions was the Nazi pseudoscience of a "Master Race."
>
That seems quite unfair to Spencer. At worst he was a callous libertarian
or proto-Randroid not a fascist. He thought in terms of a right to ignore
the state. State imposed policies of who can reproduce seem contrary to
such a laissez faire view no? Arguably social historian Richard Hofstadter
“invented” social darwinism as a concept retrospectively applied to some
disparate strains of thought half a century or more previous.

Galton developed the idea of eugenics, which was a precursor to Nazi Master
Race ideology, but would you too blame him for what came much later? Hitler
and the Nazis were inspired by Madison Grant and others (Stoddard etc) who
applied eugenics in the US in a very developed manner. The US had started
putting sterilization statutes on its books and this procedure and its
impact on individual rights came to a head in Buck v Bell (1927) a SCOTUS
decision.

Galton’s eugenics and Spencer’s libertarian callousness toward social
reform are not the same thing. Eugenics was part of the package of reform
promoted by American progressivism. So was conservation.

Wildlife management was a form of conservation. Eugenics is akin to that.
>
> [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen that fights viruses"?]
>
Sounds like a convoluted application of Nietzschean rhetoric to immunology.
Nietzsche too has been unfairly blamed for Nazi ideology.
>
> The only way biologists use the term "the fittest survive" is by way of
> the barren tautology:
> the fittest are, BY DEFINITION, the ones that survive to pass their genes
> on to the population.
>
Survival is for nothing without reproduction.
>
> It says NOTHING about what kinds of anatomical, or whatever, traits are
> more fit than others.
> The Nazis thought they knew, but biologists worthy of the name do not think that way.
> Except in the most obvious cases, they know better than to try and judge that some trait
> is more fit than another. A great deal depends on the environment, which
> is too unpredictable.
> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall, because the
> environment favored
> large size; today the same species only has six
> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what
> the environment favors.
>
The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or animal
husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination from the
body politic. That may be an important distinction.

Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Is that what you are really afraid of, that an anti-Covid-2 vaccine is more likely
> to hurt you, and to hurt you worse, than an invasion of SARS-CoV-2 viruses
> that your immune system hasn't got the any antibodies for?
>
Here’s a great article debunking one of the anti-vax myths— the one about
COVID vaccines altering DNA:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy

It would take jumping hurdles of reverse transcription, access to the
nucleus, and integration for which the mRNA vaccines lack the tools.

Technically immunocytes have the capacity to alter their own DNA. Part of
this is shuffling of antibody encoding genes. But there is another process
known as hypermutation. If COVID infection or vaccination response gets to
that point, that’s a case of indirect DNA alteration, but not confined to
COVID and is a good thing as it diversifies the potential response to
pathogens.

On 8.9.2021. 12:02, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am short on time, so in this second reply I can only spare the time for three isolated
>> issues where you seem to imagine that you know a lot more than I do.
>>
>> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 7.9.2021. 3:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:47:13 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 22:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> And it is nothing like the permanent damage to your lungs or liver you
>>>> could get from Covid-19. You can read about some of the grisly possibilities here,
>>>> as well as the jarring statistic you can read already from the url (95 means 95%):
>>>>
>>>> https://theconversation.com/at-my-hospital-over-95-of-covid-19-patients-share-one-thing-in-common-theyre-unvaccinated-166708#_=_
>>
>>> I don't know people, do you read at all, about Covid-19 illness?
>>
>> Do you? it seems that you have totally ignored the very title of the long and
>> hard-hitting article that I have linked for you. Obviously, you never read it.
>>
>>
>>> It is NOT caused by the virus.
>>
>> Is your authority for this the usual "They say"? What makes you think that
>> you haven't been duped by anti-vaxxer propaganda?
>>
>> Is it that, as you were growing up, you realized that what the Communist government
>> issued was full of lies, and uncritically believed everything that was
>> critical of the government
>> and widely asserted in the places you happen to have heard or read?
>> And now you've carried this attitude over to all governments?
>>
>>
>>> It is that, weak organisms are destroyed by our
>>> immune system that lost its calibration.
>>
>> Be that as it may, I hope you realize that you are putting yourself at
>> risk by not getting vaccinated.
>> Don't imagine that you would be doing future generations a disservice by
>> getting vaccinated.
>> You said yourself that you are beyond the age of sexual indulgence.
>>
>>
>> <snip for focus>
>>
>>
>>> No, you didn't. You are under the impression that humans managed to
>>> create some Supermen that fights viruses.
>>
>> This is a complete falsehood. I never said anything of the sort.
>>
>>
>> <snip for focus>
>>
>>
>>>>> They say that somebody who was ill and not vaccinated, and survived,
>>>>> has 7 times better immunity than the one who was vaccinated.
>>>>
>>>> But please, note that he also could suffer terrible physical damage even if
>>>> he survived. Fat lot of good any immunity will do him if he is an
>>>> invalid for the rest of his life.
>>
>>> Of course. He can die, if he isn't fit. The fittest survive, anybody
>>> of you ever gone to school, learning the basics of biology?
>>
>> I have, but it looks like you haven't: "survival of the fittest" is not a
>> biological expression.
>> It was coined by the non-biologist Herbert Spencer, who invented "social darwinism",
>> one of whose worst expressions was the Nazi pseudoscience of a "Master Race."
>>
> That seems quite unfair to Spencer. At worst he was a callous libertarian
> or proto-Randroid not a fascist. He thought in terms of a right to ignore
> the state. State imposed policies of who can reproduce seem contrary to
> such a laissez faire view no? Arguably social historian Richard Hofstadter
> “invented” social darwinism as a concept retrospectively applied to some
> disparate strains of thought half a century or more previous.
>
> Galton developed the idea of eugenics, which was a precursor to Nazi Master
> Race ideology, but would you too blame him for what came much later? Hitler
> and the Nazis were inspired by Madison Grant and others (Stoddard etc) who
> applied eugenics in the US in a very developed manner. The US had started
> putting sterilization statutes on its books and this procedure and its
> impact on individual rights came to a head in Buck v Bell (1927) a SCOTUS
> decision.
>
> Galton’s eugenics and Spencer’s libertarian callousness toward social
> reform are not the same thing. Eugenics was part of the package of reform
> promoted by American progressivism. So was conservation.
>
> Wildlife management was a form of conservation. Eugenics is akin to that.
>>
>> [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen that fights viruses"?]
>>
> Sounds like a convoluted application of Nietzschean rhetoric to immunology.
> Nietzsche too has been unfairly blamed for Nazi ideology.
>>
>> The only way biologists use the term "the fittest survive" is by way of
>> the barren tautology:
>> the fittest are, BY DEFINITION, the ones that survive to pass their genes
>> on to the population.
>>
> Survival is for nothing without reproduction.
>>
>> It says NOTHING about what kinds of anatomical, or whatever, traits are
>> more fit than others.
>> The Nazis thought they knew, but biologists worthy of the name do not think that way.
>> Except in the most obvious cases, they know better than to try and judge that some trait
>> is more fit than another. A great deal depends on the environment, which
>> is too unpredictable.
>> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall, because the
>> environment favored
>> large size; today the same species only has six
>> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what
>> the environment favors.
>>
> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or animal
> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination from the
> body politic. That may be an important distinction.

I don't know much about what you are writing, but my belief also is
that certain ethnicities (or groups, or types, like psychopaths) should
be eliminated as a form of hygiene. After all, Jews were treated like
that since Jews exist. For sure there was a reason for that.
In democracy (as I am seeing it), he who does things to harm majority,
he should be treated as a pest. Isn't this the very definition of the
word "pest"?
"A pest is any animal or plant harmful to humans or human concerns."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_(organism)
I was always a minority, I was always different. I even declared
myself as a minority, while my both parents are Croats, at one time I
declared myself an American, and later, an Italian.
But, whatever I do, I am doing it for the benefit of the majority,
otherwise, why would they tolerate me? After all, I am shitting onto
their world, it is me who is not to standards, who is wrong, not them,
it is their world, one should have respect for that.
Germany does much better without Jews than with Jews. Jews without
Germans are worse than Germans without Jews. Yet, when Jews were in
Germany, it is Jews who were better. They were better than Germans in
German country, yet, if those two compete in their own countries, it is
Germans that are better.
There is a flow (I hope this is the right word, like "fault") in a
system which allows parasites to exploit the host. This is a natural
thing, parasites in nature also exploit system faults. Jews know about
that, and they exploit it shamelessly wherever they can. The very
religion, which doesn't take in new believers, tells you that this is a
minority that wants to exploit the majority. Things like that shouldn't
be allowed.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On 9/8/21 6:01 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 8.9.2021. 12:02, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am short on time, so in this second reply I can only spare the time
>>> for three isolated
>>> issues where you seem to imagine that you know a lot more than I do.
>>>
>>> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7.9.2021. 3:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:47:13 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 22:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And it is nothing like the permanent damage to your lungs or liver you
>>>>> could get from Covid-19. You can read about some of the grisly
>>>>> possibilities here,
>>>>> as well as the jarring statistic you can read already from the url
>>>>> (95 means 95%):
>>>>>
>>>>> https://theconversation.com/at-my-hospital-over-95-of-covid-19-patients-share-one-thing-in-common-theyre-unvaccinated-166708#_=_
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't know people, do you read at all, about Covid-19 illness?
>>>
>>> Do you? it seems that you have totally ignored the very title of the
>>> long and
>>> hard-hitting article that I have linked for you. Obviously, you never
>>> read it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is NOT caused by the virus.
>>>
>>> Is your authority for this the usual "They say"? What makes you think
>>> that
>>> you haven't been duped by anti-vaxxer propaganda?
>>>
>>> Is it that, as you were growing up, you realized that what the
>>> Communist government
>>> issued was full of lies, and uncritically believed everything that was
>>> critical of the government
>>> and widely asserted in the places you happen to have heard or read?
>>> And now you've carried this attitude over to all governments?
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is that, weak organisms are destroyed by our
>>>> immune system that lost its calibration.
>>>
>>> Be that as it may, I hope you realize that you are putting yourself at
>>> risk by not getting vaccinated.
>>> Don't imagine that you would be doing future generations a disservice by
>>> getting vaccinated.
>>> You said yourself that you are beyond the age of sexual indulgence.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip for focus>
>>>
>>>
>>>> No, you didn't. You are under the impression that humans managed to
>>>> create some Supermen that fights viruses.
>>>
>>> This is a complete falsehood. I never said anything of the sort.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip for focus>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> They say that somebody who was ill and not vaccinated, and survived,
>>>>>> has 7 times better immunity than the one who was vaccinated.
>>>>>
>>>>> But please, note that he also could suffer terrible physical damage
>>>>> even if
>>>>> he survived. Fat lot of good any immunity will do him if he is an
>>>>> invalid for the rest of his life.
>>>
>>>> Of course. He can die, if he isn't fit. The fittest survive, anybody
>>>> of you ever gone to school, learning the basics of biology?
>>>
>>> I have, but it looks like you haven't: "survival of the fittest" is
>>> not a
>>> biological expression.
>>> It was coined by the non-biologist Herbert Spencer, who invented
>>> "social darwinism",
>>> one of whose worst expressions was the Nazi pseudoscience of a
>>> "Master Race."
>>>
>> That seems quite unfair to Spencer. At worst he was a callous libertarian
>> or proto-Randroid not a fascist. He thought in terms of a right to ignore
>> the state. State imposed policies of who can reproduce seem contrary to
>> such a laissez faire view no? Arguably social historian Richard
>> Hofstadter
>> “invented” social darwinism as a concept retrospectively applied to some
>> disparate strains of thought half a century or more previous.
>>
>> Galton developed the idea of eugenics, which was a precursor to Nazi
>> Master
>> Race ideology, but would you too blame him for what came much later?
>> Hitler
>> and the Nazis were inspired by Madison Grant and others (Stoddard etc)
>> who
>> applied eugenics in the US in a very developed manner. The US had started
>> putting sterilization statutes on its books and this procedure and its
>> impact on individual rights came to a head in Buck v Bell (1927) a SCOTUS
>> decision.
>>
>> Galton’s eugenics and Spencer’s libertarian callousness toward social
>> reform are not the same thing. Eugenics was part of the package of reform
>> promoted by American progressivism. So was conservation.
>>
>> Wildlife management was a form of conservation. Eugenics is akin to that.
>>>
>>> [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen
>>> that fights viruses"?]
>>>
>> Sounds like a convoluted application of Nietzschean rhetoric to
>> immunology.
>>   Nietzsche too has been unfairly blamed for Nazi ideology.
>>>
>>> The only way biologists use the term "the fittest survive" is by way of
>>> the barren tautology:
>>> the fittest are, BY DEFINITION, the ones that survive to pass their
>>> genes
>>> on to the population.
>>>
>> Survival is for nothing without reproduction.
>>>
>>> It says NOTHING about what kinds of anatomical, or whatever, traits are
>>> more fit than others.
>>> The Nazis thought they knew, but biologists worthy of the name do not
>>> think that way.
>>> Except in the most obvious cases, they know better than to try and
>>> judge that some trait
>>> is more fit than another.  A great deal depends on the environment,
>>> which
>>> is too unpredictable.
>>> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall, because the
>>> environment favored
>>> large size; today the same species only has six
>>> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what
>>> the environment favors.
>>>
>> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or
>> animal
>> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
>> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
>> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination from
>> the
>> body politic. That may be an important distinction.
>
>         I don't know much about what you are writing, but my belief
> also is that certain ethnicities (or groups, or types, like psychopaths)
> should be eliminated as a form of hygiene. After all, Jews were treated
> like that since Jews exist. For sure there was a reason for that.
>         In democracy (as I am seeing it), he who does things to harm
> majority, he should be treated as a pest. Isn't this the very definition
> of the word "pest"?
>         "A pest is any animal or plant harmful to humans or human
> concerns."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_(organism)
>         I was always a minority, I was always different. I even
> declared myself as a minority, while my both parents are Croats, at one
> time I declared myself an American, and later, an Italian.
>         But, whatever I do, I am doing it for the benefit of the
> majority, otherwise, why would they tolerate me? After all, I am
> shitting onto their world, it is me who is not to standards, who is
> wrong, not them, it is their world, one should have respect for that.
>         Germany does much better without Jews than with Jews. Jews
> without Germans are worse than Germans without Jews. Yet, when Jews were
> in Germany, it is Jews who were better. They were better than Germans in
> German country, yet, if those two compete in their own countries, it is
> Germans that are better.
>         There is a flow (I hope this is the right word, like "fault")
> in a system which allows parasites to exploit the host. This is a
> natural thing, parasites in nature also exploit system faults. Jews know
> about that, and they exploit it shamelessly wherever they can. The very
> religion, which doesn't take in new believers, tells you that this is a
> minority that wants to exploit the majority. Things like that shouldn't
> be allowed.
>
Holy shit! He's a Nazi??

On 8.9.2021. 15:06, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/8/21 6:01 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 8.9.2021. 12:02, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I am short on time, so in this second reply I can only spare the
>>>> time for three isolated
>>>> issues where you seem to imagine that you know a lot more than I do.
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 7.9.2021. 3:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:47:13 PM UTC-4, Mario
>>>>>> Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 22:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> And it is nothing like the permanent damage to your lungs or liver
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> could get from Covid-19. You can read about some of the grisly
>>>>>> possibilities here,
>>>>>> as well as the jarring statistic you can read already from the url
>>>>>> (95 means 95%):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://theconversation.com/at-my-hospital-over-95-of-covid-19-patients-share-one-thing-in-common-theyre-unvaccinated-166708#_=_
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know people, do you read at all, about Covid-19 illness?
>>>>
>>>> Do you? it seems that you have totally ignored the very title of the
>>>> long and
>>>> hard-hitting article that I have linked for you. Obviously, you
>>>> never read it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is NOT caused by the virus.
>>>>
>>>> Is your authority for this the usual "They say"? What makes you
>>>> think that
>>>> you haven't been duped by anti-vaxxer propaganda?
>>>>
>>>> Is it that, as you were growing up, you realized that what the
>>>> Communist government
>>>> issued was full of lies, and uncritically believed everything that was
>>>> critical of the government
>>>> and widely asserted in the places you happen to have heard or read?
>>>> And now you've carried this attitude over to all governments?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is that, weak organisms are destroyed by our
>>>>> immune system that lost its calibration.
>>>>
>>>> Be that as it may, I hope you realize that you are putting yourself at
>>>> risk by not getting vaccinated.
>>>> Don't imagine that you would be doing future generations a
>>>> disservice by
>>>> getting vaccinated.
>>>> You said yourself that you are beyond the age of sexual indulgence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip for focus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No, you didn't. You are under the impression that humans managed to
>>>>> create some Supermen that fights viruses.
>>>>
>>>> This is a complete falsehood. I never said anything of the sort.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip for focus>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> They say that somebody who was ill and not vaccinated, and survived,
>>>>>>> has 7 times better immunity than the one who was vaccinated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But please, note that he also could suffer terrible physical
>>>>>> damage even if
>>>>>> he survived. Fat lot of good any immunity will do him if he is an
>>>>>> invalid for the rest of his life.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course. He can die, if he isn't fit. The fittest survive, anybody
>>>>> of you ever gone to school, learning the basics of biology?
>>>>
>>>> I have, but it looks like you haven't: "survival of the fittest" is
>>>> not a
>>>> biological expression.
>>>> It was coined by the non-biologist Herbert Spencer, who invented
>>>> "social darwinism",
>>>> one of whose worst expressions was the Nazi pseudoscience of a
>>>> "Master Race."
>>>>
>>> That seems quite unfair to Spencer. At worst he was a callous
>>> libertarian
>>> or proto-Randroid not a fascist. He thought in terms of a right to
>>> ignore
>>> the state. State imposed policies of who can reproduce seem contrary to
>>> such a laissez faire view no? Arguably social historian Richard
>>> Hofstadter
>>> “invented” social darwinism as a concept retrospectively applied to some
>>> disparate strains of thought half a century or more previous.
>>>
>>> Galton developed the idea of eugenics, which was a precursor to Nazi
>>> Master
>>> Race ideology, but would you too blame him for what came much later?
>>> Hitler
>>> and the Nazis were inspired by Madison Grant and others (Stoddard
>>> etc) who
>>> applied eugenics in the US in a very developed manner. The US had
>>> started
>>> putting sterilization statutes on its books and this procedure and its
>>> impact on individual rights came to a head in Buck v Bell (1927) a
>>> SCOTUS
>>> decision.
>>>
>>> Galton’s eugenics and Spencer’s libertarian callousness toward social
>>> reform are not the same thing. Eugenics was part of the package of
>>> reform
>>> promoted by American progressivism. So was conservation.
>>>
>>> Wildlife management was a form of conservation. Eugenics is akin to
>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen
>>>> that fights viruses"?]
>>>>
>>> Sounds like a convoluted application of Nietzschean rhetoric to
>>> immunology.
>>>   Nietzsche too has been unfairly blamed for Nazi ideology.
>>>>
>>>> The only way biologists use the term "the fittest survive" is by way of
>>>> the barren tautology:
>>>> the fittest are, BY DEFINITION, the ones that survive to pass their
>>>> genes
>>>> on to the population.
>>>>
>>> Survival is for nothing without reproduction.
>>>>
>>>> It says NOTHING about what kinds of anatomical, or whatever, traits are
>>>> more fit than others.
>>>> The Nazis thought they knew, but biologists worthy of the name do
>>>> not think that way.
>>>> Except in the most obvious cases, they know better than to try and
>>>> judge that some trait
>>>> is more fit than another.  A great deal depends on the environment,
>>>> which
>>>> is too unpredictable.
>>>> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall, because
>>>> the
>>>> environment favored
>>>> large size; today the same species only has six
>>>> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what
>>>> the environment favors.
>>>>
>>> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or
>>> animal
>>> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
>>> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
>>> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination
>>> from the
>>> body politic. That may be an important distinction.
>>
>>          I don't know much about what you are writing, but my belief
>> also is that certain ethnicities (or groups, or types, like
>> psychopaths) should be eliminated as a form of hygiene. After all,
>> Jews were treated like that since Jews exist. For sure there was a
>> reason for that.
>>          In democracy (as I am seeing it), he who does things to harm
>> majority, he should be treated as a pest. Isn't this the very
>> definition of the word "pest"?
>>          "A pest is any animal or plant harmful to humans or human
>> concerns."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_(organism)
>>          I was always a minority, I was always different. I even
>> declared myself as a minority, while my both parents are Croats, at
>> one time I declared myself an American, and later, an Italian.
>>          But, whatever I do, I am doing it for the benefit of the
>> majority, otherwise, why would they tolerate me? After all, I am
>> shitting onto their world, it is me who is not to standards, who is
>> wrong, not them, it is their world, one should have respect for that.
>>          Germany does much better without Jews than with Jews. Jews
>> without Germans are worse than Germans without Jews. Yet, when Jews
>> were in Germany, it is Jews who were better. They were better than
>> Germans in German country, yet, if those two compete in their own
>> countries, it is Germans that are better.
>>          There is a flow (I hope this is the right word, like "fault")
>> in a system which allows parasites to exploit the host. This is a
>> natural thing, parasites in nature also exploit system faults. Jews
>> know about that, and they exploit it shamelessly wherever they can.
>> The very religion, which doesn't take in new believers, tells you that
>> this is a minority that wants to exploit the majority. Things like
>> that shouldn't be allowed.
>>
> Holy shit! He's a Nazi??

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:26:43 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]

To Mario:
> > Is that what you are really afraid of, that an anti-Covid-2 vaccine is more likely
> > to hurt you, and to hurt you worse, than an invasion of SARS-CoV-2 viruses
> > that your immune system hasn't got any antibodies for?
> >
> Here’s a great article debunking one of the anti-vax myths— the one about
> COVID vaccines altering DNA:

> https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy
>
> It would take jumping hurdles of reverse transcription, access to the
> nucleus, and integration for which the mRNA vaccines lack the tools.

This will scotch the altered DNA myth, but not kill it. Or kill it and not
drive a stake through its heart [pick your metaphor].
More is needed to drive a stake through its heart.

There may indeed be some some reverse transcriptase floating around,
either from a retrovirus (e. g., HIV) infecting the same cell, or the body's own reverse transcriptase
[something whose existence I disbelieved until this summer] and perhaps it could produce DNA
that codes for the mRNA. At this point, the natural question arises: what's to stop
that DNA from being transcribed right in the cytoplasm to form more mRNA, to
be reverse transcribed... in an endless feedback loop? The article doesn't mention this question.

Fortunately, there are two answers. First, transcription takes place in the nucleus.
And second, transcription doesn't get initiated unless the DNA has a somewhat
long recognition sequence of nucleotides in the right place. And the mRNA lacks
the complementary sequence. It does have the much shorter recognition sequence
to initiate translation into spike protein, but that won't initiate transcription.

There is another toxic bit of scaremongering that might fool some people
into thinking the first answer can be circumvented. And that is that
"the vaccine alters the working of your mitochondria." This slogan
has gone viral without any explanation of what the alleged alteration
is or how it is caused.

Worst case scenario would be if the reverse-transcribed DNA could get
into your mitochondria, which may not have the safeguards of the nucleus.
Whether this is possible or not, I cannot answer myself [and neither does the linked article].

However, I maintain that the second answer -- lack of a recognition sequence --
is enough to drive a stake through the heart of the myth.

> Technically immunocytes have the capacity to alter their own DNA. Part of
> this is shuffling of antibody encoding genes. But there is another process
> known as hypermutation. If COVID infection or vaccination response gets to
> that point, that’s a case of indirect DNA alteration, but not confined to
> COVID and is a good thing as it diversifies the potential response to
> pathogens.

As usual, you are so fond of glibness that you don't spell out the relevance,
if any, to possible damage caused by the mRNA. Do you know some reasons
why that worst case scenario cannot come to pass?

If not, perhaps others do. Hemi, see if you can find someone in talk.origins who has the
background knowledge to drive a second stake through the heart of the myth.
In this high-stakes debate, overkill is a virtue.

Peter Nyikos

PS Feel free to groan at my pun.

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:03:01 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 7.9.2021. 3:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:47:13 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> >> You are under the impression that humans managed to
> >> create some Supermen that fights viruses.

A Master Race? :) Anyway, the question is moot:

> > This is a complete falsehood. I never said anything of the sort.
> >
> >
> > <snip for focus>
> >
> >
> >>>> They say that somebody who was ill and not vaccinated, and survived,
> >>>> has 7 times better immunity than the one who was vaccinated.

> >>> But please, note that he also could suffer terrible physical damage even if
> >>> he survived. Fat lot of good any immunity will do him if he is an
> >>> invalid for the rest of his life.
> >
> >> Of course. He can die, if he isn't fit. The fittest survive, anybody
> >> of you ever gone to school, learning the basics of biology?
> >
> > I have, but it looks like you haven't: "survival of the fittest" is not a
> > biological expression.
> > It was coined by the non-biologist Herbert Spencer, who invented "social darwinism",
> > one of whose worst expressions was the Nazi pseudoscience of a "Master Race."
> >
> That seems quite unfair to Spencer. At worst he was a callous libertarian
> or proto-Randroid not a fascist.

Back in 1958, when I spent a few weeks in NYC, I was the guest of someone who
subscribed to one of the tabloids [not the Post, perhaps the Daily News].
It had a regular one-panel comic strip feature named "Ching Chow",
each one with a pithy saying. I still remember two of them:

1. Rebuke from a friend is worth more than praise from a flatterer.

As you can see, I have been rebuking Mario and will continue to do so, and
perhaps he considers me to be his friend despite that.

It is the second one that applies to Herbert Spencer.

2. A fool can start a stone rolling that a thousand wise men cannot stop.

>He thought in terms of a right to ignore
> the state. State imposed policies of who can reproduce seem contrary to
> such a laissez faire view no?

Spencer started the stone of social darwinism rolling nevertheless,
and others gave the stone new impetus to the point where
a thousand wise men couldn't stop it. Maybe Herbert Spencer was
one of them, if he saw some state imposed eugenics being justified by a perceived
"fitness" of one kind of person over another. Mental "defectives" were
one obvious candidate for the designation of "unfit."

>Arguably social historian Richard Hofstadter
> “invented” social darwinism as a concept retrospectively applied to some
> disparate strains of thought half a century or more previous.

Irrelevant semantics. "Survival of the fittest human beings" started that
stone rolling down a steep slope regardless of whether it was called "social darwinism".

[Note my consistent use of lower case d. The less sullied the name of
Charles Darwin by this rolling stone, the better.]

> Galton developed the idea of eugenics, which was a precursor to Nazi Master
> Race ideology, but would you too blame him for what came much later?

I'm not the one to point fingers; there are enough social scientists in academe
to do that job.

> Hitler and the Nazis were inspired by Madison Grant and others (Stoddard etc) who
> applied eugenics in the US in a very developed manner. The US had started
> putting sterilization statutes on its books and this procedure and its
> impact on individual rights came to a head in Buck v Bell (1927) a SCOTUS
> decision.
>
> Galton’s eugenics and Spencer’s libertarian callousness toward social
> reform are not the same thing. Eugenics was part of the package of reform
> promoted by American progressivism. So was conservation.

So was Planned Parenthood, thanks to Margaret Sanger, who was very
much into eugenics.

> Wildlife management was a form of conservation. Eugenics is akin to that.

Peter Singer would probably agree.

> > [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen that fights viruses"?]
> >
> Sounds like a convoluted application of Nietzschean rhetoric to immunology.
> Nietzsche too has been unfairly blamed for Nazi ideology.

The Nazis were secular syncretists. They readily absorbed ideas that they could
turn to their ideological ends.

> > The only way biologists use the term "the fittest survive" is by way of
> > the barren tautology:
> > the fittest are, BY DEFINITION, the ones that survive to pass their genes
> > on to the population.
> >
> Survival is for nothing without reproduction.

Right, and all too many use the terms "fit" and "unfit" in ways divorced from it.
That was a point I made next:
> > It says NOTHING about what kinds of anatomical, or whatever, traits are
> > more fit than others.
> > The Nazis thought they knew, but biologists worthy of the name do not think that way.
> > Except in the most obvious cases, they know better than to try and judge that some trait
> > is more fit than another. A great deal depends on the environment, which
> > is too unpredictable.
> > In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall, because the
> > environment favored large size; today the same species only has six
> > foot tall kangaroos, because that is what the environment favors.
> >
> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or animal
> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination from the
> body politic. That may be an important distinction.

I fail to see the difference. There is no science of eugenics, so people
are free to make eugenics in their own image. The canard of Christians
"making God in their own image" is one expression of a powerful meme
that has been cast loose from its original moorings.

Peter Nyikos

On 8.9.2021. 20:46, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:26:43 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>
> To Mario:
>>> Is that what you are really afraid of, that an anti-Covid-2 vaccine is more likely
>>> to hurt you, and to hurt you worse, than an invasion of SARS-CoV-2 viruses
>>> that your immune system hasn't got any antibodies for?
>>>
>> Here’s a great article debunking one of the anti-vax myths— the one about
>> COVID vaccines altering DNA:
>
>
>> https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy
>>
>> It would take jumping hurdles of reverse transcription, access to the
>> nucleus, and integration for which the mRNA vaccines lack the tools.
>
> This will scotch the altered DNA myth, but not kill it. Or kill it and not
> drive a stake through its heart [pick your metaphor].
> More is needed to drive a stake through its heart.
>
> There may indeed be some some reverse transcriptase floating around,
> either from a retrovirus (e. g., HIV) infecting the same cell, or the body's own reverse transcriptase
> [something whose existence I disbelieved until this summer] and perhaps it could produce DNA
> that codes for the mRNA. At this point, the natural question arises: what's to stop
> that DNA from being transcribed right in the cytoplasm to form more mRNA, to
> be reverse transcribed... in an endless feedback loop? The article doesn't mention this question.
>
> Fortunately, there are two answers. First, transcription takes place in the nucleus.
> And second, transcription doesn't get initiated unless the DNA has a somewhat
> long recognition sequence of nucleotides in the right place. And the mRNA lacks
> the complementary sequence. It does have the much shorter recognition sequence
> to initiate translation into spike protein, but that won't initiate transcription.
>
>
> There is another toxic bit of scaremongering that might fool some people
> into thinking the first answer can be circumvented. And that is that
> "the vaccine alters the working of your mitochondria." This slogan
> has gone viral without any explanation of what the alleged alteration
> is or how it is caused.
>
> Worst case scenario would be if the reverse-transcribed DNA could get
> into your mitochondria, which may not have the safeguards of the nucleus.
> Whether this is possible or not, I cannot answer myself [and neither does the linked article].
>
> However, I maintain that the second answer -- lack of a recognition sequence --
> is enough to drive a stake through the heart of the myth.
>
>
>> Technically immunocytes have the capacity to alter their own DNA. Part of
>> this is shuffling of antibody encoding genes. But there is another process
>> known as hypermutation. If COVID infection or vaccination response gets to
>> that point, that’s a case of indirect DNA alteration, but not confined to
>> COVID and is a good thing as it diversifies the potential response to
>> pathogens.
>
> As usual, you are so fond of glibness that you don't spell out the relevance,
> if any, to possible damage caused by the mRNA. Do you know some reasons
> why that worst case scenario cannot come to pass?
>
> If not, perhaps others do. Hemi, see if you can find someone in talk.origins who has the
> background knowledge to drive a second stake through the heart of the myth.
> In this high-stakes debate, overkill is a virtue.

This is about in tune of what I am saying.
We know almost everything about combustion engine, about how to make
chassis for a car, everything about car, yet, our gas was full with led.
On the other hand, we don't know almost anything about what is going
on in our organism when it fights viruses. This is not a game, all this
playing and experimenting can extinct us. Everybody is so greedy for
success, nobody is cautious at all, in that greed.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 8.9.2021. 15:06, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/8/21 6:01 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 8.9.2021. 12:02, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> Except in the most obvious cases, [biologists] know better than to try and
> >>>> judge that some trait
> >>>> is more fit than another. A great deal depends on the environment,
> >>>> which is too unpredictable.
> >>>> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall,
> >>>>because the environment favored large size; today the same species only has six
> >>>> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what the environment favors.
> >>>>
> >>> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or
> >>> animal
> >>> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
> >>> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
> >>> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination
> >>> from the
> >>> body politic. That may be an important distinction.
> >>
> >> I don't know much about what you are writing, but my belief
> >> also is that certain ethnicities (or groups, or types, like
> >> psychopaths) should be eliminated as a form of hygiene.

Using whose criteria? Why do you latch onto Jews right away?
What have they done to you?

> >> After all, Jews were treated like that since Jews exist.

Only by some peoples. The Muslims only sporadically did that.
At other times they were the tolerant ones, treating Jews as "People of the Book".

Leaving old history behind for one line: do you know what the attitude of the Taliban is towards Jews? I don't.

Jews prospered for a long time in some countries, free of "elimination,"
because they were the entrepreneurs. In WWII the Hungarians were among the Axis
who could not keep the economy going without Jews.
Only after the Germans installed a government of the Hungarian Nazis
("the Arrow Cross") in 1944 did the elimination of Jews really get underway, IIRC.

> >> For sure there was a reason for that.

Until you are sure of the reason, there is no cause for you to play "monkey see, monkey do."
When you are sure, perhaps you won't join it.

> >> In democracy (as I am seeing it), he who does things to harm
> >> majority, he should be treated as a pest. Isn't this the very
> >> definition of the word "pest"?

The majority can be tragically wrong sometimes.

> >> "A pest is any animal or plant harmful to humans or human
> >> concerns."
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_(organism)
> >> I was always a minority, I was always different. I even
> >> declared myself as a minority, while my both parents are Croats, at
> >> one time I declared myself an American, and later, an Italian.
> >> But, whatever I do, I am doing it for the benefit of the
> >> majority, otherwise, why would they tolerate me?

You are being very simplistic here. Need I tell you why?

> >> After all, I am
> >> shitting onto their world, it is me who is not to standards, who is
> >> wrong, not them, it is their world, one should have respect for that.

Here in America, there are all kinds of people, with none in the majority any more.
It's a very much more heterogeneous society than Croatia, or Hungary.

> >> Germany does much better without Jews than with Jews. Jews
> >> without Germans are worse than Germans without Jews. Yet, when Jews
> >> were in Germany, it is Jews who were better. They were better than
> >> Germans in German country, yet, if those two compete in their own
> >> countries, it is Germans that are better.

I'm not following this at all. Are you sure you thought about it before you typed it out?

> >> There is a flow (I hope this is the right word, like "fault")
> >> in a system which allows parasites to exploit the host. This is a
> >> natural thing, parasites in nature also exploit system faults. Jews
> >> know about that, and they exploit it shamelessly wherever they can.
> >> The very religion, which doesn't take in new believers,

Zoroastrianism is another such religion, and I suspect there are many others.

> >> tells you that this is a minority that wants to exploit the majority.

"tells you" is ambiguous. I doubt that you'll find evidence that Zoroastrians
want to exploit the majority. What makes you think Jews do?

> >> Things like that shouldn't be allowed.

I think you are under the spell of the extreme emphasis Communists put on the word "exploit."
I "exploit" supermarkets whenever I buy only things that are on sale below cost. I "exploit" the
rain that falls from the sky and waters my garden for me.

> > Holy shit! He's a Nazi??

> It is Jews who should apologize to others, for everything they did to
> others in the past.

Who is "they"? their ancestors? Should descendants who have done no wrong
apologize for having survived the Holocaust?

> Regarding Nazi, isn't the definition of Nazism that Germans are better
> than the rest?

No, Aryans. At least some of them, like the Croats who collaborated with the Nazis.
On the other hand, Slavs further east and north were treated abominably.

>In that regard I am not a Nazi.

> This is what Wikipedia says:
> "Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and
> the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism,
> anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its
> creed.... ...Nazism subscribed to pseudo-scientific theories of a racial
> hierarchy and social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of
> what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race. It aimed to
> overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous German society based
> on racial purity which represented a people's community
> (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in
> historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for
> German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those who
> they deemed either Community Aliens or "inferior" races."

> I am nothing like Nazi, I cherish democracy, I am not a chauvinist, I
> don't aim to overcome social divisions, I don't aim to unite whole
> nations, and I don't think that Jews are "inferior race". I think that
> Jews (and other parasites) are dangerous, but not "inferior race".
> Nazism do incorporate antisemitism, but antisemitism isn't Nazism. I
> am not against Semites, but I am against Jews,

You are being too literal. The usual understanding of "antisemitism" is being against Jews.

> and against communists. I
> am against *anybody* who wants to harm the majority.

"harm the majority" -- individuals like you and me are incapable of harming more
than a small handful of people. You need to get specific on how you think Jews
as a whole are harming the majority and not just some identifiable minority..

I think I've said all I want to about this topic this week. I'd rather talk about
vaccination for a while -- Hemidactylus and I have made some progress on
this subject and I'd like to keep on making it.

Peter Nyikos

On 9.9.2021. 3:24, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 8.9.2021. 15:06, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 9/8/21 6:01 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 8.9.2021. 12:02, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Except in the most obvious cases, [biologists] know better than to try and
>>>>>> judge that some trait
>>>>>> is more fit than another. A great deal depends on the environment,
>>>>>> which is too unpredictable.
>>>>>> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall,
>>>>>> because the environment favored large size; today the same species only has six
>>>>>> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what the environment favors.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or
>>>>> animal
>>>>> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
>>>>> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
>>>>> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination
>>>>> from the
>>>>> body politic. That may be an important distinction.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know much about what you are writing, but my belief
>>>> also is that certain ethnicities (or groups, or types, like
>>>> psychopaths) should be eliminated as a form of hygiene.
>
> Using whose criteria? Why do you latch onto Jews right away?
> What have they done to you?

Based on the criteria of the majority. Even if I am not part of that
majority, and even if this "hygiene" applies on me.
Regarding Jews, aren't they the most notorious example? I mean,
everybody knows everything about Jews. I could mention other examples,
but then I would need to explain much more.
Regarding me and Jews. I grew up in richer neighborhood, and one of
other two kids in my street is a Jew. So, we were friends from since we
were kids, and we were always in good relationship (and yes, he was, and
still is, extremely rich).
The other thing that I know is from history. I know that there were
few percentages of Jews in Zagreb, but they were holding 85 % of all the
investments in Zagreb. Being a guy who is predominantly considered about
justice, I see great injustice in this. I am wandering what views on
justice have people who don't care about such an imbalance?

>>>> After all, Jews were treated like that since Jews exist.
>
> Only by some peoples. The Muslims only sporadically did that.
> At other times they were the tolerant ones, treating Jews as "People of the Book".
>
> Leaving old history behind for one line: do you know what the attitude of the Taliban is towards Jews? I don't.

I don't either.

> Jews prospered for a long time in some countries, free of "elimination,"
> because they were the entrepreneurs. In WWII the Hungarians were among the Axis
> who could not keep the economy going without Jews.
> Only after the Germans installed a government of the Hungarian Nazis
> ("the Arrow Cross") in 1944 did the elimination of Jews really get underway, IIRC.
>
>>>> For sure there was a reason for that.
>
> Until you are sure of the reason, there is no cause for you to play "monkey see, monkey do."
> When you are sure, perhaps you won't join it.

I don't have to be sure about the reasons, and I don't act upon other
people's reasons. I have my reasons.
But, isn't it significant, never-the-less?

>>>> In democracy (as I am seeing it), he who does things to harm
>>>> majority, he should be treated as a pest. Isn't this the very
>>>> definition of the word "pest"?
>
> The majority can be tragically wrong sometimes.

Oh, definitely. But, they have "the right" to be whatever they want to
be. In other words, they are *always right*, majority is *never* wrong.
Now, you are the one who is imposing *your* religious believes onto
others. And you don't have any right to do so.

>>>> "A pest is any animal or plant harmful to humans or human
>>>> concerns."
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_(organism)
>>>> I was always a minority, I was always different. I even
>>>> declared myself as a minority, while my both parents are Croats, at
>>>> one time I declared myself an American, and later, an Italian.
>>>> But, whatever I do, I am doing it for the benefit of the
>>>> majority, otherwise, why would they tolerate me?
>
> You are being very simplistic here. Need I tell you why?

I am always pretty simplistic.

>>>> After all, I am
>>>> shitting onto their world, it is me who is not to standards, who is
>>>> wrong, not them, it is their world, one should have respect for that.
>
> Here in America, there are all kinds of people, with none in the majority any more.
> It's a very much more heterogeneous society than Croatia, or Hungary.

Yes, I am aware of that. America is, never-the-less, nothing like
Bosnia, or Afghanistan, for example. Do you really want it to be like
Bosnia, or Afghanistan, one day?

>>>> Germany does much better without Jews than with Jews. Jews
>>>> without Germans are worse than Germans without Jews. Yet, when Jews
>>>> were in Germany, it is Jews who were better. They were better than
>>>> Germans in German country, yet, if those two compete in their own
>>>> countries, it is Germans that are better.
>
> I'm not following this at all. Are you sure you thought about it before you typed it out?

Why not? What's wrong with this?

>>>> There is a flow (I hope this is the right word, like "fault")
>>>> in a system which allows parasites to exploit the host. This is a
>>>> natural thing, parasites in nature also exploit system faults. Jews
>>>> know about that, and they exploit it shamelessly wherever they can.
>>>> The very religion, which doesn't take in new believers,
>
> Zoroastrianism is another such religion, and I suspect there are many others.
>
>>>> tells you that this is a minority that wants to exploit the majority.
>
> "tells you" is ambiguous. I doubt that you'll find evidence that Zoroastrians
> want to exploit the majority. What makes you think Jews do?

It is obvious, in my eyes.

>>>> Things like that shouldn't be allowed.
>
> I think you are under the spell of the extreme emphasis Communists put on the word "exploit."
> I "exploit" supermarkets whenever I buy only things that are on sale below cost. I "exploit" the
> rain that falls from the sky and waters my garden for me.

Yes. And parasites exploit their hosts. If I got the word right. If
not, please put the right word here, I would really like to know the
right word. Thanks.

>>> Holy shit! He's a Nazi??
>
>> It is Jews who should apologize to others, for everything they did to
>> others in the past.
>
> Who is "they"? their ancestors? Should descendants who have done no wrong
> apologize for having survived the Holocaust?

When they lived the way of life they lived, they should count on that
there will be a Holocaust at the end of that journey. If they didn't
count, well, then they are plain stupid. As everybody can see, Holocaust
did happen, and they should expect it. So, nobody has to apologize for
the Holocaust. And Jews, if they don't want to live in piece with other
nations, they can simply continue to live the way they are living, it is
their problem, not mine.
I must remind you that the West at that time didn't care what is
happening to Jews, either. They knew exactly what is happening, but
they, simply, didn't care. There was also one movie about that, about
the ship full with Jews, and no western country wanted to accept those
refugees. They didn't care. And now you expect me to care? Why would I?
Because, *today*, it suits your agenda?

>> Regarding Nazi, isn't the definition of Nazism that Germans are better
>> than the rest?
>
> No, Aryans. At least some of them, like the Croats who collaborated with the Nazis.
> On the other hand, Slavs further east and north were treated abominably.
>
>> In that regard I am not a Nazi.
>
>
>> This is what Wikipedia says:
>> "Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and
>> the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism,
>> anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its
>> creed.... ...Nazism subscribed to pseudo-scientific theories of a racial
>> hierarchy and social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of
>> what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race. It aimed to
>> overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous German society based
>> on racial purity which represented a people's community
>> (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in
>> historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for
>> German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those who
>> they deemed either Community Aliens or "inferior" races."
>
>> I am nothing like Nazi, I cherish democracy, I am not a chauvinist, I
>> don't aim to overcome social divisions, I don't aim to unite whole
>> nations, and I don't think that Jews are "inferior race". I think that
>> Jews (and other parasites) are dangerous, but not "inferior race".
>> Nazism do incorporate antisemitism, but antisemitism isn't Nazism. I
>> am not against Semites, but I am against Jews,
>
> You are being too literal. The usual understanding of "antisemitism" is being against Jews.

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 10:48:50 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 9.9.2021. 3:24, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 8.9.2021. 15:06, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/8/21 6:01 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 8.9.2021. 12:02, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> Except in the most obvious cases, [biologists] know better than to try and
> >>>>>> judge that some trait
> >>>>>> is more fit than another. A great deal depends on the environment,
> >>>>>> which is too unpredictable.
> >>>>>> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall,
> >>>>>> because the environment favored large size; today the same species only has six
> >>>>>> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what the environment favors.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or
> >>>>> animal
> >>>>> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
> >>>>> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
> >>>>> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination
> >>>>> from the
> >>>>> body politic. That may be an important distinction.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know much about what you are writing, but my belief
> >>>> also is that certain ethnicities (or groups, or types, like
> >>>> psychopaths) should be eliminated as a form of hygiene.
> >
> > Using whose criteria? Why do you latch onto Jews right away?
> > What have they done to you?

> Based on the criteria of the majority. Even if I am not part of that
> majority, and even if this "hygiene" applies on me.
> Regarding Jews, aren't they the most notorious example? I mean,
> everybody knows everything about Jews.

Maybe in your part of Croatia [although I doubt it] but certainly
not in the USA. The endless harping on the Holocaust -- not that I
mind most of it, "Schindler's List" was jarring even to me -- drowns out
anything negative people here say in the media about Jews.

> I could mention other examples,
> but then I would need to explain much more.
> Regarding me and Jews. I grew up in richer neighborhood, and one of
> other two kids in my street is a Jew. So, we were friends from since we
> were kids, and we were always in good relationship (and yes, he was, and
> still is, extremely rich).
> The other thing that I know is from history. I know that there were
> few percentages of Jews in Zagreb, but they were holding 85 % of all the
> investments in Zagreb.

They know a lot about investing; most people do not. There is nothing said
in our elementary or secondary schools about investing, except savings accounts,
and those are almost worthless these days. They don't even teach you what
stocks are for: dividends. Everyone seems to be focused on speculation,
buying low and selling high.

> Being a guy who is predominantly considered about
> justice, I see great injustice in this.

If you think that is injustice, you really ought to read Milovan Djilas's
_Land_Without_Justice, about REAL injustices that pervaded his native
Montenegro. It was as bad as the "justice" meted out by the Mafia,
and it was built into the very character of the people.

> I am wandering what views on
> justice have people who don't care about such an imbalance?

Financial imbalances have nothing to do with justice, unless the
riches were unjustly obtained.

Do you think Bill Gates deserves to be lynched just because he is so much
more wealthy than almost everyone on earth?

> >>>> After all, Jews were treated like that since Jews exist.
> >
> > Only by some peoples. The Muslims only sporadically did that.
> > At other times they were the tolerant ones, treating Jews as "People of the Book".
> >
> > Leaving old history behind for one line: do you know what the attitude of the Taliban is towards Jews? I don't.

> I don't either.

I learned a lot about that yesterday, after writing the above. The bottom line is here:
the Jews almost all left Afghanistan, after once numbering over 40,000, first to emigrate to Israel after 1948,
then almost all of them after the Soviet involvement in 1979. The other day the last Jew in Afghanistan left:

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/afghanistans-jew-leaves-taliban-takeover-79893286

As for the Taliban, this is what the article says close to the end:
"The Taliban, like other Islamic militant groups, are hostile to Israel but tolerated the country's miniscule Jewish community during their previous reign. "
[Incidentally, the correct spelling is "minuscule".]
By the way, that "last Jew" reminds me of most of the Montenegrins in Djilas's book.
Not someone I'd like to meet.

> > Jews prospered for a long time in some countries, free of "elimination,"
> > because they were the entrepreneurs. In WWII the Hungarians were among the Axis
> > who could not keep the economy going without Jews.
> > Only after the Germans installed a government of the Hungarian Nazis
> > ("the Arrow Cross") in 1944 did the elimination of Jews really get underway, IIRC.
> >
> >>>> For sure there was a reason for that.
> >
> > Until you are sure of the reason, there is no cause for you to play "monkey see, monkey do."
> > When you are sure, perhaps you won't join it.

> I don't have to be sure about the reasons, and I don't act upon other
> people's reasons. I have my reasons.
> But, isn't it significant, never-the-less?

Not necessarily, especially since you aren't telling me about your reasons even now.

> >>>> In democracy (as I am seeing it), he who does things to harm
> >>>> majority, he should be treated as a pest. Isn't this the very
> >>>> definition of the word "pest"?
> >
> > The majority can be tragically wrong sometimes.

One example: the centuries-long mismanagement of the earth's resources.
Like I said a little over an hour ago on
"Humans can do math, hence, humans are intelligent animals",
I foresee the collapse of our civilization by 2300 unless drastic changes are made.

> Oh, definitely. But, they have "the right" to be whatever they want to
> be. In other words, they are *always right*, majority is *never* wrong.

Aren't you being resentful about the way things are here? You seem
to be complaining about the morality of "Might makes right." That is
the morality of the majority in talk.origins, as far as what they do there goes,
and that is one reason I fight against it.

> Now, you are the one who is imposing *your* religious believes onto
> others. And you don't have any right to do so.

Not I. Who does "you" refer to?

> >>>> "A pest is any animal or plant harmful to humans or human
> >>>> concerns."
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_(organism)
> >>>> I was always a minority, I was always different. I even
> >>>> declared myself as a minority, while my both parents are Croats, at
> >>>> one time I declared myself an American, and later, an Italian.
> >>>> But, whatever I do, I am doing it for the benefit of the
> >>>> majority, otherwise, why would they tolerate me?
> >
> > You are being very simplistic here. Need I tell you why?
> I am always pretty simplistic.

In this case, it's sad that people around you are so intolerant,
that you can't feel free to do things that don't do what the majority
thinks will benefit them.

> >>>> After all, I am
> >>>> shitting onto their world, it is me who is not to standards, who is
> >>>> wrong, not them, it is their world, one should have respect for that..
> >
> > Here in America, there are all kinds of people, with none in the majority any more.
> > It's a very much more heterogeneous society than Croatia, or Hungary.

> Yes, I am aware of that. America is, never-the-less, nothing like
> Bosnia, or Afghanistan, for example. Do you really want it to be like
> Bosnia, or Afghanistan, one day?

Of course not. And the way you write about it, I wouldn't want it to be like Croatia either.

But the point is, here in America most people aren't hostile enough towards Jews
to say the sorts of things you say below.

On 9/9/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Continued in next reply to this post. I will hold off with it until evening,
> to see whether Harshman or Hemidactylus or Oxyaena give a damn about either Jews
> or vaccinations enough to reply to something by either of us on either subject.

I have made the choice not to engage further with a rabid anti-semite.
And, apparently, a rabid anti-various other unstated groups, who
proposes extermination as a general solution. You have to draw the line
somewhere.

On 9.9.2021. 16:50, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 10:48:50 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 9.9.2021. 3:24, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 8.9.2021. 15:06, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 9/8/21 6:01 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 8.9.2021. 12:02, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Except in the most obvious cases, [biologists] know better than to try and
>>>>>>>> judge that some trait
>>>>>>>> is more fit than another. A great deal depends on the environment,
>>>>>>>> which is too unpredictable.
>>>>>>>> In the last ice age there were gray kangaroos ten feet tall,
>>>>>>>> because the environment favored large size; today the same species only has six
>>>>>>>> foot tall kangaroos, because that is what the environment favors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Nazis were engaged in a dubious form of artificial selection or
>>>>>>> animal
>>>>>>> husbandry in their Master Race schema. But what they were doing wasn’t
>>>>>>> entirely eugenics. They pivoted to a hygiene model treating certain
>>>>>>> ethnicities as socially detrimental pathogens needing elimination
>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>> body politic. That may be an important distinction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know much about what you are writing, but my belief
>>>>>> also is that certain ethnicities (or groups, or types, like
>>>>>> psychopaths) should be eliminated as a form of hygiene.
>>>
>>> Using whose criteria? Why do you latch onto Jews right away?
>>> What have they done to you?
>
>> Based on the criteria of the majority. Even if I am not part of that
>> majority, and even if this "hygiene" applies on me.
>> Regarding Jews, aren't they the most notorious example? I mean,
>> everybody knows everything about Jews.
>
> Maybe in your part of Croatia [although I doubt it] but certainly
> not in the USA. The endless harping on the Holocaust -- not that I
> mind most of it, "Schindler's List" was jarring even to me -- drowns out
> anything negative people here say in the media about Jews.

Well, it is just the same here, in Croatia. I would be called a Nazi
just the same in Croatia, like I am in this news group.
But, it is not the first time for me, first, to try to see things up
to the bottom, and second, to not be in tune with the rest. I do this
all the time. I've got used to it a long time ago, lol.

>> I could mention other examples,
>> but then I would need to explain much more.
>> Regarding me and Jews. I grew up in richer neighborhood, and one of
>> other two kids in my street is a Jew. So, we were friends from since we
>> were kids, and we were always in good relationship (and yes, he was, and
>> still is, extremely rich).
>> The other thing that I know is from history. I know that there were
>> few percentages of Jews in Zagreb, but they were holding 85 % of all the
>> investments in Zagreb.
>
> They know a lot about investing; most people do not. There is nothing said
> in our elementary or secondary schools about investing, except savings accounts,
> and those are almost worthless these days. They don't even teach you what
> stocks are for: dividends. Everyone seems to be focused on speculation,
> buying low and selling high.

You can find just any excuse. The fact is, they don't expand their
religion, for the sake of exploiting the hosts. They are organized in
that way. If they would expand their religion, this mean business
wouldn't work.

>> Being a guy who is predominantly considered about
>> justice, I see great injustice in this.
>
> If you think that is injustice, you really ought to read Milovan Djilas's
> _Land_Without_Justice, about REAL injustices that pervaded his native
> Montenegro. It was as bad as the "justice" meted out by the Mafia,
> and it was built into the very character of the people.
>
>> I am wandering what views on
>> justice have people who don't care about such an imbalance?
>
> Financial imbalances have nothing to do with justice, unless the
> riches were unjustly obtained.
>
> Do you think Bill Gates deserves to be lynched just because he is so much
> more wealthy than almost everyone on earth?

Do you think that "robber barons" shouldn't be dealt with? Monopoly is
unjust. If you have two brothers among 10 people, those two are twice as
strong as any of the other 8. Of course they will prevail. Jews prevail
because they are organized. They prevail on their behalf, and to the
harm of the host. Now, if those 2 brothers do this to the other 8, what
should other 8 do? 8 people should watch how those 2 exploit them? Why?
Just because those are 2, and this 8 are single? This 8 can do to those
2 whatever they think they should, those 2 deserved it. It is not their
place in that company, because they are so unfriendly, and so mean,
towards the others.
The business of Bill Gates enriches the American community. The
business of Jews make others poor. Somebody who would make Americans
poor wouldn't be allowed to do his business in America, I presume.
Including Jews.
It isn't the problem if Jews are rich. The problem is that they are
behaving just like parasites are behaving. They don't care the slightest
about the host, and now you are expecting that host should care about them.

>>>>>> After all, Jews were treated like that since Jews exist.
>>>
>>> Only by some peoples. The Muslims only sporadically did that.
>>> At other times they were the tolerant ones, treating Jews as "People of the Book".
>>>
>>> Leaving old history behind for one line: do you know what the attitude of the Taliban is towards Jews? I don't.
>
>> I don't either.
>
> I learned a lot about that yesterday, after writing the above. The bottom line is here:
> the Jews almost all left Afghanistan, after once numbering over 40,000, first to emigrate to Israel after 1948,
> then almost all of them after the Soviet involvement in 1979. The other day the last Jew in Afghanistan left:
>
> https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/afghanistans-jew-leaves-taliban-takeover-79893286
>
> As for the Taliban, this is what the article says close to the end:
> "The Taliban, like other Islamic militant groups, are hostile to Israel but tolerated the country's miniscule Jewish community during their previous reign."
> [Incidentally, the correct spelling is "minuscule".]
> By the way, that "last Jew" reminds me of most of the Montenegrins in Djilas's book.
> Not someone I'd like to meet.

I know nothing about Djilas and that book, but, if you are interested,
right now you have very interesting things going on in Montenegro.
Things that very much resemble what was going on in Balkans 30 years
ago. Actually, very soon a lot of interesting things will be going on
all over the Globe, including the Balkans. Actually, it already began,
as you can see.

>>> Jews prospered for a long time in some countries, free of "elimination,"
>>> because they were the entrepreneurs. In WWII the Hungarians were among the Axis
>>> who could not keep the economy going without Jews.
>>> Only after the Germans installed a government of the Hungarian Nazis
>>> ("the Arrow Cross") in 1944 did the elimination of Jews really get underway, IIRC.
>>>
>>>>>> For sure there was a reason for that.
>>>
>>> Until you are sure of the reason, there is no cause for you to play "monkey see, monkey do."
>>> When you are sure, perhaps you won't join it.
>
>> I don't have to be sure about the reasons, and I don't act upon other
>> people's reasons. I have my reasons.
>> But, isn't it significant, never-the-less?
>
> Not necessarily, especially since you aren't telling me about your reasons even now.

Hm, I thought that you should know, since it is so obvious. Read the
story about 2 brothers in a company of 10 people, above.

>>>>>> In democracy (as I am seeing it), he who does things to harm
>>>>>> majority, he should be treated as a pest. Isn't this the very
>>>>>> definition of the word "pest"?
>>>
>>> The majority can be tragically wrong sometimes.
>
> One example: the centuries-long mismanagement of the earth's resources.
> Like I said a little over an hour ago on
> "Humans can do math, hence, humans are intelligent animals",
> I foresee the collapse of our civilization by 2300 unless drastic changes are made.

On 9.9.2021. 17:59, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/9/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Continued in next reply to this post. I will hold off with it until
>> evening,
>> to see whether Harshman or Hemidactylus or Oxyaena give a damn about
>> either Jews
>> or vaccinations enough to reply to something by either of us on either
>> subject.
>
> I have made the choice not to engage further with a rabid anti-semite.
> And, apparently, a rabid anti-various other unstated groups, who
> proposes extermination as a general solution. You have to draw the line
> somewhere.

See Peter. This happened while I was writing my reply to you (yes, I
am slow in writing).

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Peter Nyikos <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Continued in next reply to this post. I will hold off with it until evening,
> to see whether Harshman or Hemidactylus or Oxyaena give a damn about either Jews
> or vaccinations enough to reply to something by either of us on either subject.
>
I don’t reply to him because of previous experience. After his recent
outbursts about Jews I don’t think engaging him does any good (ditto on
vaccines).

Not sure why you felt a need to say what you did about Harshman and I
giving a damn about Jews. A bit uncalled for really.

Do you have impulsivity issues?

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:35:18 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Continued in next reply to this post. I will hold off with it until evening,
> > to see whether Harshman or Hemidactylus or Oxyaena give a damn about either Jews
> > or vaccinations enough to reply to something by either of us on either subject.
> >
> I don’t reply to him because of previous experience. After his recent
> outbursts about Jews I don’t think engaging him does any good (ditto on
> vaccines).
>
> Not sure why you felt a need to say what you did about Harshman and I
> giving a damn about Jews. A bit uncalled for really.
>
> Do you have impulsivity issues?

There are so many unpleasant aspects tp Mario's ramblings that it isn't obvious why
Peter is so intrigued with him. This isn't to say that Mario is personally reprehensible, but
he certainly seems to have picked up a bit of bigoted garbage that has floated around in
eastern Europe for at least hundreds of years. (This also isn't to say that similar bigoted garbage
hasn't floated around western Europe and pretty much everywhere else, but the tone of the
garbage is often regionally characteristic.) I am not familiar with Hungarian bigotry although
i'm sure it's a thing, or whether Peter has sensed something about Mario's ranting that rings
some bell. I am sure that Peter's insults would continue whether you gave a damn about Jews or not.
That said, I'm through with this thread as it's going nowhere interesting.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 11:59:22 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/9/21 7:50 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Continued in next reply to this post. I will hold off with it until evening,
> > to see whether Harshman or Hemidactylus or Oxyaena give a damn about either Jews
> > or vaccinations enough to reply to something by either of us on either subject.

> I have made the choice not to engage further with a rabid anti-semite.
> And, apparently, a rabid anti-various other unstated groups, who
> proposes extermination as a general solution. You have to draw the line
> somewhere.

How about posting on the subject of the coronavirus, or vaccination? Here is something in the
article that Hemidactylus linked which I find puzzling:

"These spikes, by themselves, are not dangerous. They can't make anyone sick. "
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy

What is it, then, about the virus that makes some people deathly sick? Some other part of the
virus that our antibodies are unable to target?

Peter Nyikos

On 9.9.2021. 21:10, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:35:18 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Continued in next reply to this post. I will hold off with it until evening,
>>> to see whether Harshman or Hemidactylus or Oxyaena give a damn about either Jews
>>> or vaccinations enough to reply to something by either of us on either subject.
>>>
>> I don’t reply to him because of previous experience. After his recent
>> outbursts about Jews I don’t think engaging him does any good (ditto on
>> vaccines).
>>
>> Not sure why you felt a need to say what you did about Harshman and I
>> giving a damn about Jews. A bit uncalled for really.
>>
>> Do you have impulsivity issues?
>
> There are so many unpleasant aspects tp Mario's ramblings that it isn't obvious why
> Peter is so intrigued with him. This isn't to say that Mario is personally reprehensible, but
> he certainly seems to have picked up a bit of bigoted garbage that has floated around in
> eastern Europe for at least hundreds of years. (This also isn't to say that similar bigoted garbage
> hasn't floated around western Europe and pretty much everywhere else, but the tone of the
> garbage is often regionally characteristic.) I am not familiar with Hungarian bigotry although
> i'm sure it's a thing, or whether Peter has sensed something about Mario's ranting that rings
> some bell. I am sure that Peter's insults would continue whether you gave a damn about Jews or not.
> That said, I'm through with this thread as it's going nowhere interesting.

I would just ask you to hold your horses a bit. I am not your wrecking
beg.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 9.9.2021. 16:50, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > They know a lot about investing; most people do not. There is nothing said
> > in our elementary or secondary schools about investing, except savings accounts,
> > and those are almost worthless these days. They don't even teach you what
> > stocks are for: dividends. Everyone seems to be focused on speculation,
> > buying low and selling high.

> You can find just any excuse. The fact is, they don't expand their
> religion, for the sake of exploiting the hosts.

There you go, completely disregarding what I wrote about Zoroastrians.
Small wonder: it makes this comment of yours worthless without additional evidence.

> They are organized in
> that way. If they would expand their religion, this mean business
> wouldn't work.

> >> Being a guy who is predominantly considered about
> >> justice, I see great injustice in this.
> >
> > If you think that is injustice, you really ought to read Milovan Djilas's
> > _Land_Without_Justice, about REAL injustices that pervaded his native
> > Montenegro. It was as bad as the "justice" meted out by the Mafia,
> > and it was built into the very character of the people.

Will you go on disregarding this? Are you planning to go on talking
about financial imbalances being injustice despite what you wrote
below about Bill Gates?

> >> I am wandering what views on
> >> justice have people who don't care about such an imbalance?
> >
> > Financial imbalances have nothing to do with justice, unless the
> > riches were unjustly obtained.
> >
> > Do you think Bill Gates deserves to be lynched just because he is so much
> > more wealthy than almost everyone on earth?

> Do you think that "robber barons" shouldn't be dealt with?

No, and I believe Gates deserves to be fined at least a billion dollars
for destroying Netscape. Not content with having taken it over, he
made sure that thousands of urls to Netscape articles would never work any more.
Sort of like the Romans sowing the ground of Carthage with salt after
razing the city to the ground.

There was a time when Netscape seemed almost synonymous with the Internet.
[Roughly 1993 - 2000.] When was the last time you heard anything about it?

> Monopoly is unjust. If you have two brothers among 10 people, those two are twice as
> strong as any of the other 8. Of course they will prevail. Jews prevail
> because they are organized. They prevail on their behalf, and to the
> harm of the host. Now, if those 2 brothers do this to the other 8, what
> should other 8 do? 8 people should watch how those 2 exploit them? Why?
> Just because those are 2, and this 8 are single? This 8 can do to those
> 2 whatever they think they should, those 2 deserved it. It is not their
> place in that company, because they are so unfriendly, and so mean,
> towards the others.

Even if this fable is based on reality, it is nothing compared to what Bill Gates has done.
The hypocrite put a measly $100,000 to a propaganda campaign to make Californians vote themselves
a $300,000,000 increase in their taxes to support "embryonic stem cell research."
Bill Gates could easily have footed the whole bill himself, but he was clever enough
[you might prefer to say "Jewish enough"] to hedge his bets big-time, and his hedging
paid off: nothing of medical value has emerged from it in a decade and a half,
while "adult" [actually anything that isn't almost totipotent] stem cells have worked
one medical triumph after another.

> The business of Bill Gates enriches the American community.

I'd like to see you try to defend this. Microsoft is still pursuing monopoly-type
practices, and I'm sure Bill Gates is very happy about it. And also about how
so much computer related hardware, including laptops like mine, is outsourced to China.

Enough of this for this week. Unlike Harshman, I haven't completely given up on you,
and if you say anything sensible about what I've said just now, I'll make
a point of replying on Monday, and maybe to some of the other things you wrote in
the post to which I am replying now.

Peter Nyikos

PS I've decided to hold off until Monday with the continuation that I said I would
hold off with "until this evening." Your attitude here requires careful thinking on how to proceed.

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 3:10:51 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:35:18 AM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > Peter Nyikos <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Continued in next reply to this post. I will hold off with it until evening,
> > > to see whether Harshman or Hemidactylus or Oxyaena give a damn about either Jews
> > > or vaccinations enough to reply to something by either of us on either subject.
> > >
> > I don’t reply to him because of previous experience. After his recent
> > outbursts about Jews I don’t think engaging him does any good (ditto on
> > vaccines).
> >
> > Not sure why you felt a need to say what you did about Harshman and I
> > giving a damn about Jews. A bit uncalled for really.
> >
> > Do you have impulsivity issues?

No, but Hemidactylus does: he disregarded the main point of what I wrote,
which began with "enough to reply to something by either of us..."

It looks like he is indulging in guilt by association where I am concerned, as are you, Erik:

> There are so many unpleasant aspects tp Mario's ramblings that it isn't obvious why
> Peter is so intrigued with him.

Unlike you, he is still a largely unknown quantity to me. Did you miss my having said that
to Harshman, or are you merely feigning having missed it?

Since you've played the role of an ethical nihilist here these last four years, and almost a
decade in talk.origins, I think I'd better clarify that "unknown quantity"
means the difference between being morally reprehensible or merely profoundly misguided.

Difficult though it is for you and Harshman and Hemidactylus and Oxyaena to understand,
I distinguish between knowingly engaging in despicable behavior and being the victim of believing things
that just aren't true, for reasons rooted in one's milieu.

> This isn't to say that Mario is personally reprehensible, but
> he certainly seems to have picked up a bit of bigoted garbage that has floated around in
> eastern Europe for at least hundreds of years. (This also isn't to say that similar bigoted garbage
> hasn't floated around western Europe and pretty much everywhere else, but the tone of the
> garbage is often regionally characteristic.) I am not familiar with Hungarian bigotry although
> i'm sure it's a thing, or whether Peter has sensed something about Mario's ranting that rings
> some bell.

I know too little about Hungarian bigotry that isn't half a century ago to comment.
I do know a bit about "woke" bigotry that the EU is aggressively strong-arming Hungary with,
but I'd rather not go into detail about it.

> I am sure that Peter's insults would continue whether you gave a damn about Jews or not.

Every time Hemidactylus does something really despicable, what you and Harshman self-servingly
(and, as here, Hemidactylus-servingly) call "insults" [read: explanations about why it is despicable]
will be leveled against him directly. His comments here fall short of being despicable, so this
reply to you is all he'll see about them.

> That said, I'm through with this thread as it's going nowhere interesting..

Yes, you find vaccination issues uninteresting, just as you find misleading comments in
popularizations under the aegis of _Science_ and _Nature_ to be uninteresting from the
point of view of correcting them for the benefit of the general public. Even when they
get the main point of the research article they are popularizing wrong.

Peter Nyikos