Me reading this post.
i've noticed sheep firmly believe that genes are responsible for the things they don't like about themselves. i guess this explanation is irresistible to the order-follower. maybe the covid-nurse told them genes are safe and effective and that's why they believe in them so hard.
hairloss? "Not my fault, the genes are responsible."
ugly? "No i can not be responsible for that, it is the fault of my parents."
i have heard all their dumb reasoning. they pretend genes are this set of rules that basically say that a person can not make decisions and they hate the idea of free will anyways so they just use this as proof that choice is an illusion and that way they never have to question their choices.
i've seen these choices. i've seen the choices that later in life will make a person lose the hair. i've seen the choices that slowly but gradually turn a person ugly.
yeeees of course i am a shizo because the covid nurse said so but i am the good looking shizo with hair and if i came here dressed in a labcoat with a clip board you would probably believe everything i say.
if this science-sounding belief of you having nothing to do with how you look was able to seduce you, there might be no limit of how much dumb shit you are willing to accept from someone in a labcoat.
i guess this entire obsession with using genes as scapegoats is just an elaborate way to play dumb. someone could tell you what is really happening and you would stick the fingers in your ear and loudly drown out all other information by singing "lalala".
if science is all there is, that must mean you learned not to touch the hot stove because you (and this was before you were able to read) read a study that proved unequivocally not to touch the hot stove.
you must have never asked yourself how knowledge worked before universities were placed in charge of deciding what is true.
often scientists are the last to know something. something that is obvious to someone engaging in reasoning himself will take science a while to find out about, and that is assumed they are allowed to study it and write about it because science of course is bound by the mechanisms of society.
what if some corrupt leader (you know the ones wearing the boots you love to lick) doesn't want something to be true and then threatens a university to cut funding if they don't happen to find the outcome the leader wants? or what if a scientist is promised to get millions in funding if he changes his mind on something the leaders want to be true?
science is a bitch, science is subject to the whims of the elite.
i know all your stupid arguments, the truth is that you like science because you don't like to think, you don't like to engage in reasoning yourself and just want someone else to be your mommy and daddy and tell you what is real.
>i've seen
>i am the good looking
You don't need to be a scientist to understand that sample consisting of few people you know and yourself isn't representative nor big enough.
> what if
Science is globalised, every publication is available to every scientist in the world. And the thing scientists love the most is to debunk other scientists publications because it's much easier than to come up with an idea of your own so whatever corrupted institutions promote in science can only be used by corrupted media related to these institutions but not outside.
>You don't need to be a scientist to understand that sample consisting of few people you know and yourself isn't representative nor big enough.
just because someone isn't part of your cult and uses the cult approved language like samplesize and correlation, doesn't mean that the experiences are worthless.
an intelligent person could collect experiences with thousands of people and not call it a sample size and not publish in your dirty club of peer review and it could still accurately describe, predict or equip to replicate a complex phenomenon.
a sample size of one is sometimes enough to fully understand something and further iterations do nothing but underline the previously discovered results. all those mechanisms you try to advertise might be nice in certain cases but they are not the necessity you make them out to be.
>Science is globalised, every publication is available to every scientist in the world
except for when pfizer tries to hide the data for 70 years or when fauci bribes the creators of a study with millions to rethink their results.
if academic science was what you want to pretend it is in front of me, the disaster of covid would have never happened. science should have protected the citizens against the tyranny but science helped. science complied and that is what you have yet to get in your dumb head. scientist are the bad guys.
>could collect experiences with thousands of people
Did you?
Also, as I mentioned already sample should be represntative regardless of its size. Again, you don't need to be a scientist to understand this simple principles, having a little bit of common sense is enough.
> except for
As per my last post, such cases occur and I don't deny that. But as soon as there's enough data to prove or debunk such articles things get pretty clear.
Of course you still need to see into what media tells you when it "relies on anonymous scientific source". This is also the case with covid btw. If understanding long sentences is too hard for you, I made it into a meme:
Scientists: "ughm, we think this may be the solution for that little problem, but it's just a hypothesis now. We need few more years worth of data and research to confirm this"
Media headlines: "Science Found The Solution To Everything You Asked For"
The solution: *doesn't work*
People with two digit IQ: "science is stupid, they lied to us again"
>Did you?
yeah. i estimate it must be somewhere between 5000 and 15000. this is just something i had the fortune to stumble over early in life but for an intelligent old person this is just common knowledge. you can predict quite a lot about a person based on their choices. that's not perfectly scientific but since science is dishonorable anyways it is scientific enough.
>Again, you don't need to be a scientist
again fuck your evil cult. don't measure everything by the standards established by your corrupt centralized propaganda machine. there are other doors to knowledge then science.
>As per my last post, such cases occur and I don't deny that. But as soon as there's enough data to prove or debunk such articles things get pretty clear.
that's the problem. hindsight is always 20-20. who cares when science finally "proves" what the conspiracy theorists have been practicing in real time? i rather listen to the conspiracy theorists and disregard your evil scheme.
unless you are a conspiracy theorist with nice new theories i would appreciate if you would shut your whore mouth and fuck of with your cult.
hoe, i'm not talking about birth defects, that's not a choice. i'm talking about fully equipped non-defective humans who just for reasons that they don't care to explore turn uglier every year and lose their hair, which they like to blame their genes for even though there might be other explanations.
though with enough skating and raw fruit there is a lot that can be done. of course is it a joke to you but what is funny to me is that you ridicule the thing that could improve your life because you are such a cult member that you have already decided against everything your cult doesn't approve of.
>you eat lots and lots of raw fruits and still can't learn to read or write.
is that what your boss told you to say you boot-licking bitch? i knew how to read before i entered school. i guess you were busy sticking playdough in your nose at that age and without teachers in school reading and writing would have been out of your reach.
>What you eat a raw fruit vegan diet and sk8 all the time but are still a stupid fucking monkey?
>W-well this surely must be because you don't live in a van and shit in a bag. Because my beliefs form the reality for everybody.
>regards sk8terbernd.
In your suggestions to improve other perople's life you always forget to mention your drug induced psychosis sk8terbernd. This is the real key to experience the world like you do. The other things are just side notes.
>In your suggestions to improve other perople's life you always forget to mention your drug induced psychosis sk8terbernd. This is the real key to experience the world like you do. The other things are just side notes.
drug induced psychosis? i smoke a micro dosis of weed twice a month and you pretend i am laying in my own vomit. weed is harmless, alcohol is the devil. all this academic knowledge you pretend to represent with your obedience towards normality is built or the retardation of alcoholism. alcohol is like burgers. if you consume it you are automatically trash.
you ever considered that your entire attitude towards life is one of uglyness and that your drunk, tired, obedient body is merely visualizing the attitude you have towards life? you curse out your genes but there is no amount of make up to cover your attitude, your beliefs and your assumptions about human life.
you are dirty but not the kind of dirty that you can just scrub off under the shower. you are dirty on the inside.
weed isnt harmless in itself but yeah twice a month is good, enough to keep your feet on the ground. at least for me it is.
for once i agree with you, but not so vindictively. lot of people put too much weight on genes to excuse their fear of possibilities and responsibility, but theres no reason to chastise them for it unless youd like to see them get defensive and dig their heels in. fact is that these things are fearsome and for my part i was raised to believe there is a set and mechanical way 'the world' works. that lends itself to a fatalistic outlook and, god forbid, stoicism (ptuh!).
none of these things 'make you trash' automatically, you are going from one rigid and prohibitive structure to another and both just lead to nonsense and anal rage in time
You are wrong. I don't drink alcohol but you are addicted to weed. Who is the dirty one against?
The reason why the only thing you can do is ad hominem attacks is because you have nothing to argue with. Your ramblings are purely based on your beliefs with nothing to back it up. Science at least is capable of giving logic reasons for their statements.
You have found your own religion with you as the infallible god and yourself as the sole believer. You will never find a second one. This makes your posts kind of pointless.
>weed isnt harmless in itself
if you are heavily repressed and you are looking for a feel-good button and take too much weed, the weed will wanna show you some stuff...
what stuff? exactly the type of stuff you nervously try to ignore. the stuff that gets you to nervously laugh when it is brought up in conversation and makes you want to change the subject quick. weed shines the light where you don't want it to go and it amplifies everything. weed is the good friend that asks you what you keep in the locked room and will not stop asking.
if weed makes you paranoid then because you think and question reality WAY TOO SUPERFICIALLY when you are sober. weed demands that you consider all the available information, not just the convenient one.
i don't know what you are referring to when you say weed isn't harmless.
i know alcohol isn't harmless and it is perfectly legal, encouraged and part of the culture. it is a main component of adult social life and to me that's a disgrace to resort to such an inferior drug. alcohol is shit, beer is shit. people use it to endure shit lives and it has the dangerous sideeffect nobody seems to talk about: it makes ugly women pretty enough.
i guess when i hear someone bashing weed and praising alcohol, i am probably talking to an ugly woman.
>but theres no reason to chastise them for it unless youd like to see them get defensive and dig their heels in.
i am merely the friend who wonders what is in the forbidden room and why it is forbidden. if you wanna play along and play dumb and protect ignorance go right ahead but i am smarter then you, i know this behavior can only result in more fascism so i am doing my part to shine a light on it.
>I don't drink alcohol
i don't hear you campaigning against alcohol though and clearly alcohol is the more dangerous and worse drug; unless you are an ugly woman and then you want everyone to be drunk so you seem less ugly. sounds like a stupid plan to me though because you could just stop being ugly.
>The reason why you are poor and not a millionaire is because you are lazy and not that you were born in a poor indebted family with a poor educational background.
>Millionaires deserve being millionaires because they work hard and not because they were born in rich families and their wealth enables them to indirectly leech of thousands of hard working middle and low class wageslaves through capitalism
Same retarded argument. You are making it too easy for yourselves.
millionaires don't deserve to be millionaires.
i guess for someone who believes in money this would be a similar situation but i don't respect the monetary system, i think money was a mistake, don't even get me started. passive income is slavery. tax is robbery. stock market is slave market. money is nothing but a dirty conspiracy disguising itself as a fair competition. money is broken beyond repair. it dirties everything it touches.
be that as it may, you talking about it is nothing but a dirty attempt to pretend hairloss is not the fault of the hairless.
valid point, respect upon you.
women bother to lie about their apperance to an unbelievable degree, far outpacing the lying that men engage in. it is not like a third of all men own shirts with fake muscles sewn into it. meanwhile most women know how to make their tits seem bigger. so it might be possible that women have similar hairloss but hide it so my ability to know this is quite limited. i don't go around pulling women's hair so i dunno. i'd still think it is less then with men.
the lack of hair is quite common in specific clusters of personality (and in jobs with particular requirements of behavior) among men and currently culture tries it's best to infect women to fit those personality molds with the same conditioning that created such men. so i would expect that currently the females have less hairloss but as the females continue to ascend the destructive hierarchies of violence and injustice that were typically climbed by men, their hairloss might match those of men.
>i don't know what you are referring to when you say weed isn't harmless.
i mean if you are smoking several grams a day then you will not find weed harmless when you come off it.
> if you wanna play along and play dumb and protect ignorance go right ahead but i am smarter then you,
doesn't matter at all. i'm more concerned with outcomes than with drawing attention to this or that trivial aspect of character. if what you say and do only engenders more of what you seek to amend then you aren't behaving tactfully - if you aren't seeking to amend it, then how you feel about fascism or whatever is irrelevant, since the goal is only self-aggrandisement, which is senseless since only you are paying attention.
lots of people 'shine a light' on things they proceed to do nothing about, i've found that to be self-defeating, since impotence invites contempt in the same way that weakness invites abuse.
>weed is very dangerous because it requires the use of a lighter and and when you go out to buy a lighter you could slip on a banana peel and break your neck. anyways was nice talking to you but i have some games of sportsball i intend to place bets on.
ok buddy great contribution to the threat have fun in the sports bar!
not everything true has to be deep, and not everyone tries as hard to be deep as you. your op was fairly obvious as well, you just said that people lean into their genes to play off responsibility for themselves, but you acted as though you had made some genius insight.
you said weed is harmless. it isn't. i said it wasn't, and that's all. move along to the next thread so i can belittle you there.
![qdhx7f7ozq241[1].png](/up/a81029cd3a9014e270d769e8751f1ad9.png)
![gb[1].png](/up/6f0ed9b269534a982e17bb179a1981e7.png)
>Genes ain't nothing but hoes and tricks
you know how in the old asterix movies whenever a heavy thunderstorm is brewing, the simpleton villagers worry that the heaven will fall down and hit them on the head.
whenever i hear people obsess about their genes, that's what i picture. just some village idiot infected by the current worries.
i know this fat dude who is constantly sick. he is at least 10 cm shorter then me but weighs twice what i weigh. how come he is fat and sick? duuuurp because the genes made him look that way! >.<
why would you want to be the guy on the right when you can be the guy on the left? i just don't understand you bernd, that is such a dumb decision.
you don't get to complain when you do everything to turn into the guy on the right and eventually succeed. how is that the genes fault. genes only give you a beginning, they are way less important then all these bitches pretend. their arguments are trash.
there are so much bigger fish to worry about then genes. the degree to which you genuinely believe in yourself and your abilities and trust yourself.
>But what about the height bernd?
height is tricky. some women really want that. if you are not tall enough, you might have it harder, this i can not sugarcoat, but the process is the same. become awesome and then almost all the women wanna fuck. the number of women who will like you might be smaller but that fits just fine with being small.
>i'm 5'6 (1.67) a fucking hobbit literally
doesn't matter. just your life is a little bit harder but not so much that you can't be awesome. maybe small people can do movements large people can't.
i'm 5'6 (1.67)
back when i was deciding on which van to buy, i kept thinking how useful it would be to be shorter because that way it is possible to sleep from left to right in the van instead of roadways.
i kept thinking "short people don't know how good they have it with how little space their bed wastes in the van."
Almost perfectly consistent written phonetics:
Georgian
Serbian
Macedonian
Arabic
Finnish
Turkish
Very consistent WP:
Spanish
Japanese
Italian
Korean
German
Consistent enough WP:
Hungarian (not phonetic)
Dutch (not phonetic)
Swedish (not phonetic)
Russian
Portuguese (just barely)
Bizarre mutations requiring 2 alphabets to learn correctly:
French
Tibetan
Tommytalk
Britbongblabber is so bad I take delight in pointing out curious cases like "Worcestershire", a word with 3 continual silent letters, spanning 2 syllables. You guys know another word with a silent "rce"?
it used to be difficult to learn but now there are youtube videos and even tutorials that you can watch in slow motion to just see what is happening.
find a device that you like that also fits the terrain of the place you are living at. dont buy ice skates in a place without lakes that is always hot. for every terrain humans have come up with specialized devices to elegantly skate.
skating is only dangerous to the degree in which you let overconfidence creep in. better not learn around many people, otherwise you might run the risk of wanting to impress people, which is when a lot of accidents happen...
>Britbongblabber is so bad I take delight in pointing out curious cases like "Worcestershire", a word with 3 continual silent letters, spanning 2 syllables. You guys know another word with a silent "rce"?
The "ce" is silent like in all placenames suffixed -cester (which is a consequence of schwa deletion in a weak syllable and both c and s are pronounced s so they merge), and the "r" is silent because British English is non-rhotic.
Also:
>Arabic
>Almost perfectly consistent written phonetics
lol, lmao even.
> The sounds for i acute /ʊiː/ and I circumflex /ˈiː/ exist in the (Anglo native) IPA.
Dude what
if i would be starting to skate right now, i'd probably look into these modern snakeboards that can jump. the base movement the dude is explaining is such good training. this is the gateway into using your entire body for wheel-based propulsion. just throwing your weight around.
i guess a smart way to pick a device would be to take a good look at the places you would be able to reach around you to skate at and then choose one that best fits the terrain because it sucks to have a nice skate device without a place to use it.
>Arabic not phonemic cuz i say so.
Lebanese arabic institute calls it "highly phonemic".
https://www.lebanesearabicinstitute.com/arabic-alphabet/
>I know of no other silent rce.
Yeah, thats what I thought.
>Dude what?
The IPA was made by native english speakers and they didn't used your proposed accentuation for jeans and genes. 2016 revision didn't changed that.
1) Arabic has 1) non written short vowels 2) several ways to write long vowels 3) chaotic way of indicating glottal stop (hamza? or not?), 4) "ta marbuta" which is pronounced either /t/ or /h/ or not at all and it indicates [I]feminine gender[/i] 5) utter chaos when it comes to representing /g/ in loanwords with j or q because of dialectal differences in pronunciation with no standard 6) and there's probably more
2) Worcester is the only -cester that ends in R. This doesn't change the fact that the pronunciation is actually completely regular & you're trying to obfuscate that by splitting the word up wrongly. & nonetheless that R is also silent in Worthing if you pronounce it correctly Britishly.
3) The IPA was made by the French & their journal (now Journal of the International Phonetic Association) was published in French until 1971. And in case you didn't know, those "my proposed accentuation" are IPA standard tone marking.
Actually
as I have demonstrated in >>284678
you cannot say that the entire -rce- sequence is silent, because what happens is:
1) the r is regularly silent because British English is non-rhotic
2) the e is regularly silent because it's a schwa in a weak syllable
3) the remaining c and s from -rces- sequence are both pronounced /s/, but since English doesn't allow phonetic gemination, it is not possible to say if the c is even silent because both c and s correspond to the same /s/
Of course its boring, russian dude is just insisting that rationalizing why letters are silent makes them not silent.
> it is not possible to say if the c is even silent
Totally possible. S sounding "c" followed by "s" makes a voiced sound. ˈwʊstəʃər uses an unvoiced s sound. Also, haplology. C and s were never going to geminate.
Agreed.
Both spelling and phonemes are the way they are for etymological reasons.
Also, I thought the purpose here was analyzing the spelling? Now that I demonstrated that the pronunciation of Worcestershire is, unlike what the iq89 esl believe, completely predictable based on the spelling with correct etymological breakdown being considered, you're trying to move the goalposts.
Oh, sure, shirt has a shorter vowel i sound than shit, and that is the only difference, oh great master of native English. /s
But yeah, even if the brits deigned themselves to write down their constitution completely, enshrine there the silent letter rules and they had not 1 exception, they're still silent letters.
>a shorter vowel
That's not what the tense/lax/reduced vowel gradation is in English.
It's about how intensely articulated the vowel is.
Tense vowels are in the corners of the vowel space, and in most cases at least somewhat diphthongized.
Lax vowels are slightly more weakly articulated but still fully distinct in pronunciation.
Reduced vowels tend towards schwa, but (depending on dialect) they can still preserve the properties of the original vowel weakly: Rosa's roses, etc.
But, yeah, we all know how spics pronounce the vowels when speekeeng Eengleesh...
That is actually an interesting etymological story. Remembering muricans were religious nuts, they considered "arse" as a terribly offensive word, so they changed it to the euphemism, ass, from jackass, implying a diff in pronunciation, so it would have been such a monthypythonesque scene to see the burgers telling their children:
>"Don't say /æs/, say /æs/ or I'll hit you with the rake!",
<"æs"
>"THATS ENOUGH, YOU LITTLE SHIT! Rake spanking it is!"
Sadly, English is a ragbag of silliness and some brits do pronounce it the same while some don't. Gringos are waaaaaaay more consistent in pronouncing a distinction between both, so apparently being a puritanical nutjob preserves what you consider immoral much better than indifference.
