What trivial act would you like to ban or make illegal? Personally, I would like to outlaw public speakers who start off by saying, "I can't hear you!" or "Let's try that again!"

danger_mcboom · 1 day

Or doorbells ringing in TV adverts.

Parsleymagnet · 1 day

This is one of the saddest. Poor Polandball.

uRworth_1000000 · 1 day

"There's very little meat in these gym mats".

youshallnotpass1234 · 2 days

Ah, I see. I can breathe easy, for now.

youshallnotpass1234 · 3 days

I thought that, and then I heard about this

youshallnotpass1234 · 3 days

Here it is. The man is a legend.

youshallnotpass1234 · 3 days

Damn. That includes Hitler then.

LidaBaarova · 4 days

I fully understand and take your point. It's open to debate, I suppose.

LidaBaarova · 4 days

I know that. How have I implied otherwise?

LidaBaarova · 5 days

I might try and respond for "bementar".

He wasn't one of the worst Generals, but I've read that he took very dangerous risks and put the lives of his men in much more danger than he needed to (obviously war is dangerous, but I'm talking in relation to the already present danger).

Yes, Rommel did defy many orders to raze cities, kill prisoners of war and to kill any jews he came in contact and his tacit complicity in the plot to kill Hitler, and I admire him for that, but a myth did grow up around him. He was meant to have been a very vain and proud man who took credit for a lot of what his troops had done on their own and he rolled the dice many times with their lives. I can live with Rommel being vain and proud, if he was a good man, so it doesn't irk me in the slightest. I'm merely highlighting the fact that he might have been a gambler that won more times than he lost, or won at the expense of more lives than was necessary. When Major-General Streich disobeyed his allegedly unrealistic attack orders, he famously told him that he was "far too concerned with the well-being of [his] troops". (Source)

That said, he was a much more admirable man than the standard of General on the eastern front, but then again, that was an altogether more savage war. I do believe he was a handy propaganda tool for both sides, though. I doubt I need to explain why to you. I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence on here by prattling on about obvious motives.

Zyrthofar · 5 days

I think it's normal, OP.

It happens to me anyway and I've never had any eye problems apart from being short-sighted. I get scintillating scotoma (never knew the name until now) all the time. In the wiki article it says one of the causes of the scintillating scotoma might be allergies. I have plenty of them, so maybe that's the case.

EDIT: to clarify - I get scintillating scotoma without any form of migraine.

EDIT 2: Just realised, I get Floaters on my eyes, not scintillating scotoma. The pictures in the wiki article kind of led me to think I did. Sorry for any confustion.

CitizenKang · 5 days

Finally we have an understanding. You made yourself unclear. I'm going to ignore your condescension there, just so I can be done of this "conversation". Repeating a quote that was already taken out of context doesn't validate your point.

Let me just say, you need to learn some patience and self-control. I engage in many debates on here with people with whom I disagree with and rarely come across the likes of you. Looking through your comment history, you seem to condescend people on quite a regular basis. Learn to ease up on it, much as it may pain you. I hope you're not like that with your friends. I mean you no ill will, anyway.

Good night.

CitizenKang · 5 days

You're taking my comments out of context. What I've been saying is that you cannot apply MINOR FLUCTUATIONS in a small sample group to the population at large. i.e. If you test a group of Mastizo people and find that one person has 1% Middle-Eastern DNA in their sample, you cannot say that ALL Mestizos have a certain amount of Middle-Eastern DNA in them.

Got that? Ok now.

Here's the comment you made at first:

Mestizo is ultimately a mixture. So it can be broken down. E.g. imagine you have a group of mestizo people. You can either say "they are 100% mestizo" (like the map above shows), or you can say "they are mestizo, formed of 60% Native American and 40% European ancestries". Both are correct, both give different information..

So, how far would you take this theory? Do you want displayed on the map the members of the Mestizo category split into one hundred groups related to their respective ratio of Native to European DNA? This is illogical.

You can have two groups of Mestizo: Native-European or European-Native. If you want to get any more detailed, you're into scientific paper territory, and you need to test possibly 50,000 or more across a wide expanse to get a good picture of it.

CitizenKang · 5 days

Yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

However, that's not what your original argument was about. Do you even remember what you argued?

CitizenKang · 5 days

Dude, I can't believe your ignorance. You haven't even made an attempt to correct anything I've said.

Respond to this:

These studies will obviously have fluctuations in regards to people having more or less of a certain type of DNA that indicates an original place of origin, but this data is not enough to multiply into a weighted-mean and to apply to the entire country. You simply average out anything in a group that small.

i.e. you cannot group minor fluctuations into sub-categories with such a small test base. They get averaged into the overall result, if you're using them as a base for a generalised study of a much larger section of society.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Also, you can quit being the internet tough man and actually debate with me or just fuck off.

EDIT: Spelling before I got a reply.

EDIT: For clarity. Don't lump minor fluctuations in with large fluctuations. If someone has 90% Basque DNA and 10% Saxon in contrast with everyone else who has the opposite, this is not a minor fluctuation. Therefore, they would of course be put into a sub-category. Minor fluctuations would mean a difference of 1-5% or maybe even to 10%. Your original argument is so weak I don't even know why I've debated it thus far.

CitizenKang · 5 days

You obviously didn't read all of my comment. You would have responded to each point I made otherwise, even if only to be civil.

Learn to climb down off that high horse and debate in a civilised fashion once in a while. Why resort to this childishness?

Good luck with your attitude.

CitizenKang · 5 days

Again with the condescension. Learn to hold back the rancour.

What you've failed to realise is that you were complaining about information gleaned from a census not being precise enough. You cannot combine two types of data collection and expect it not to be misleading; a census gives general details of every registered citizen within a population; it is on a macro level. A group study gives precise details on a smaller scale.

You're mixing precision with estimates and it doesn't work, unless you state it as so. Mixing the two gives a meaningless result in this particular application - the measuring the percentage of native DNA vs European DNA in these peoples.

Your method might work in more abstract areas such as trying to get a loose DNA profile of, take for example, the people of England: recent studies of selected groups have shown that there less than one percent Saxon DNA in the modern inhabitants of England.

Here's the important point: These studies will obviously have fluctuations in regards to people having more or less of a certain type of DNA that indicates an original place of origin, but this data is not enough to multiply into a weighted-mean and to apply to the entire country. You simply average out anything in a group that small.

I'm typing on a phone, so forgive any mistakes or unclear syntax. If anything of what I've said is unclear, ask me to explain.

salmnewss · 5 days

Obligatory Futurama reference.

CitizenKang · 5 days

You're being condescending, but it's getting you nowhere.

A DNA test of a sample of a population cannot be applied to a whole country. It is a tiny slice of the bigger picture, at best. A census will never be able to be as precise as you seem to want it to be. Maybe they will be in a few hundred years when they send out self-testing DNA kits with them, but that's science fiction for now.

I think you need to let the point go.

ChickenMcFail · 6 days

It's like molten lava after it's finished in one of those, if you're not careful; tasty molten lava.

I agree, though, toasted is the way to go.

minnesota_kid · 6 days

I see. Thanks for the reply, chap! I appreciate it.

minnesota_kid · 7 days

Sorry for my ignorance, but why is this so?

Anglophilia · 8 days

There be printer ink in them there hills.

violentacrez · 8 days

Then people just think "Nazi Buddha".

YouKnowHer · 9 days

I inhaled my cereal laughing at the My Heart Will Go On bit.

CitizenKang

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login