How do I respond to someone who claims that black people are 'less evolved?'

mycroftiv · 7 months

Disclaimer: not an evolutionary biologist with extensive knowledge of anthropology, or the converse. I do know, from trying to research this topic, that the field of "racial biology" is a serious can of worms, even for professional scientists. There was a lot of terrible, racist pseudoscience published during the 19th century that really "poisoned the well" and caused the entire topic to be perceived as disreputable once the scientific community mostly moved past blatantly racist assumptions.

If your friend wants to be a racist, the science doesn't really matter, because people can always just choose the 2% of evidence that supports their ideas, and ignore the 98% of evidence that doesn't. In my experience, "biological" justifications for racism are mostly constructed as a way to try to defend pre-existing attitudes.

That said, the core of your friend's argument is incorrect: there is not really a meaningful definition or measurement for "quantity of evolution". The closest you could find would be "number of generations" and by that measure, all humans living at the present moment have an approximately equal number of generations behind us. Another possible measurement would be the informational complexity of the functional DNA of the organism's genome, and again, all humans are equivalent by this measure.

It sounds like your friend is trying to make a pseudo-scientific argument based on vague concepts like "a challenging environment forces more extensive evolutionary adaptation" which sounds plausible, until you realize that criteria would say that extremophiles are thus "more evolved" than humans. Even on the human level, that kind of reasoning would lead one towards identifying polar dwellers, or desert dwellers, as "more evolved" than other humans, and this has no real justification, as well as (probably) not acting to confirm your friend's prejudices.

In many ways, I think the real issue here digs deeper than a purely scientific answer can address, because one of the problems is the intuitive association between evolution and "getting better" which exists in the popular consciousness, but is not part of the scientific theory. Almost all evolutionary biologists reject trying to map the evolutionary process onto a value system of "good and bad" in the human sense. There are useful adapations for a given environment, but that isn't the same as virtue, or quality. Also, the environment is constantly changing, so the beneficial adaptations during the Triassic period that led to Dinosaurs...well, we know how that story ends.

One thing that also needs to be stated: the work of science should always be conducted in an objective fashion, and unfortunately, this is not always true in the scientific community when it comes to these issues. Research on the topic of "race and evolutionary biology" is so controversial that many scientists prefer to direct their research elsewhere. In particular, research about possible correlation between racial categories and intelligence has seen some disappointing failures of scientific objectivity.

I believe that our worth as human beings, and the necessity for all human beings to respect and love and care for one another, is entirely independent of these matters of evolutionary biology and the variations present in human populations. One people, one love!

gsf4lyfe · 7 months

I would say that to some extent it is an example of how the metagame can self-correct. Because everyone knows Dismember is insanely good, creatures that are good against it become more valuable. The end consequence is almost perverse: because Dismember is in principle such a strong card and is playable by every deck, the best deckbuilders build around it, so the metagame fills with non-Dismemberable creatures, so Dismember becomes "bad" within the context of the real-world metagame.

mycroftiv · 7 months

Nothing wrong with your play. I am strongly against any kind of unethical play or "rules cheese" involving tricking the opponent into unintentional mistakes - but good psychology and misdirection is no problem. It is absolutely fine to make table talk which disguises your true intentions. For instance, playing against an aggro deck in the early turns when you are holding a wrath effect, looking morose and saying "looks like this one may be a short game" may lure your opponent into overcommitting to the board in hopes of a fast kill.

One thing to note is that this kind of competitive play is always fine in tournaments, but in social/casual play, you should follow the expectations of your playgroup. Some playgroups frown on this kind of thing, others love it. Casual play doesn't follow DCI tournament rules, so make sure you are following the "social rules" if you are going to use verbal misdirection. My playgroup is fine with this sort of thing, as long as it is done in a spirit of fun. I have heard that some casual playgroups have a "no table talk" rule which would be a different story.

At higher levels of play, your opponents will be familiar with these ploys and you will probably end up outsmarting yourself. A strong player would probably have sensed the trap.

mattormateusz · 7 months

Working the interior of the piano is an established technique, used by quite a few 20th composers. "The Banshee" by Henry Cowell is one of the famous early examples. The "Makrokosmos" by George Crumb is one of my favorite works for piano in the late 20th century.

In my studio, I used to have a detached piano frame - just the metal frame with stretched strings. It was amazing to experiment with amplifying it and striking/brushing the strings with different items. Occasionally while improvising on my upright, I will push up the lid and work inside for a bit.

Orangutan · 7 months

There is actually a technical, mathematical reason for this. It is very common to use a Gaussian distribution when estimating the likelihood of various events, but in many cases the actual data is better described by a Power law distribution.

This results in systematic underestimation of the likelihood of extreme events. It is why Nassim Taleb made a killing in the markets with his "Black Swan" theories.

Orangutan · 7 months

Yes, I understand. It would be more precise to say that they were created as a tool for managing risks. It should also be noted that there is a huge conceptual difference between using derivatives to hedge against the risk of securities you already own, and using derivatives to speculate on the value of securities which you do not own.

Orangutan · 7 months

It's pretty fascinating to look at recent history (the mortgage security meltdown) and see exactly why things exploded so badly. The most important disastrously wrong assumption in the statistical models used for mortgage securities was the idea that the likelihood of default on any given mortgage was independent of the risk on other mortgages. This ignored the (should have been obvious) fact that if housing prices decline in general, the likelihood of default increases greatly for all mortgages. The financial institutions would package a ton of different mortgages together and label them as AAA low-risk investment product, because their awful statistical models regarded all the different mortgages as having independent risks of default.

I don't know what kind of derivatives are part of this BOA liability-shifting story, so I don't know how likely the potential worst-case scenario would be.

Orangutan · 7 months

Actually, it doesn't sound like you know what is being talked about. Derivatives are nothing like "having 74 trillion" - they represent highly leveraged "bets" which is exactly the problem. The fundamental idea behind many derivative securities is like insurance: for $1, you can place a bet which will pay off $100 in certain circumstances. The "74 trillion" represents a theoretical number of how much BOA would owe if it lost every single bet, and placing the bets cost BOA orders of magnitude less than the amount it stands to lose. The whole problem with derivatives and leverage is that you can generate potential liabilities vastly in excess of the assets you used to purchase the derivatives. Ironically, the original purpose of derivatives was to reduce risk, but in practice things haven't worked out that way.

cinderkicks · 7 months

I'm afraid you are wrong. The reason is Magic Comprehensive Rule 202.4:

202.4. Any additional cost listed in an object‘s rules text or imposed by an effect isn‘t part of the mana cost. (See rule 601, ―Casting Spells.‖) Such costs are paid at the same time as the spell‘s other costs.

Because the commander rules say that the extra payment is an "additional cost" it would not be reduced to zero by Rooftop Storm, because Rooftop Storm only affects the "mana cost".

cinderkicks · 7 months

That is an excellent question. From checking the official Commander rules, I believe the extra payments must still be paid. The rules say:

"While a Commander is in the command zone, it may be cast. As an additional cost to cast a Commander from the command zone, its owner must pay {2} for each time it was previously cast from the command zone. (ie: it costs 6WW to cast for the third time.)"

Because it uses the term "additional cost" I believe that means that the extra mana payments are not part of the "mana cost" for the spell, and would thus not be eliminated by Rooftop Storm.

runningaclinic · 7 months

Someone just a couple days ago posted this nice guide to getting started which may help you.

mycroftiv · 7 months

Thanks. It is now several hours later, she has been released from jail, and she has a safe place to stay now. She is forbidden from going back to her home, so the man who has been abusing her has all of her personal property. After some much needed rest, she will start trying to find some assistance to deal with the legal issues.

mycroftiv · 7 months

Thank you, I will definitely call and get some advice from people with a lot more experience and knowledge about these situations.

mycroftiv · 7 months

I don't want to get into any specific details, but you can google "domestic violence mandatory arrest law" and find some information. Ironically, I am sure the intention of these policies is to protect victims of abuse, but in this case, they are being used as a weapon by the abuser.

mycroftiv · 7 months

I'm not exactly "blaming" the police, I don't want to make this about that. It is a really fucked-up and bad situation and the stuff that is happening is bad, and I'd like to figure out any way to try to help constructively or what might be done to try to prevent it from getting worse. I think the police are just sort of "following the book" procedure without trying to investigate really, but I haven't been involved personally so I have no first-hand knowledge.

mycroftiv · 7 months

I don't know the charges she has received for this arrest. I would assume some kind of physical assault charge based on lies told by the man she has been living with. Apparently there is a rule that an arrest must be made when there is a report of domestic violence, so by calling into the police, he is able to have her arrested just on his say-so.

mycroftiv · 7 months

The "evidence" is lies told by another person. She has been arrested, she is stuck in jail because she doesn't have money make bail. I don't have any money either. Her family has no ability to help her.

mycroftiv · 7 months

No, she is afraid of the police and the court system and wants to have as little to do with them as possible. Given her experiences, I think that is entirely understandable. The police have been harming her, not helping her.

mycroftiv · 7 months

Thank you, that is a good idea. She has been talking about needing to make contact with support resources, but never actually goes through with it. I will try to find out what is available in the area and make contact and see if they have any suggestions.

lady_jaye · 7 months

The best fatties of all time are almost all from fairly recent sets. A few notable absurd creatures not mentioned yet are "Iona, Shield of Emeria" "Inkwell Leviathan" "Sundering Titan" "Woodfall Primus" "Blazing Archon" "Akroma, Angel of Wrath" and for old time's sake, "Verdant Force". You will probably also want to use Quicksilver Amulet as redundancy for the Elvish Piper style effect.

tripplethrendo · 7 months

Yes, there have been several tools created to help with mana calculations. As you are aware, you can boil things down to statistics pretty easily. I have seen several online mana calculators or downloadable spreadsheets. If I was a Really Cool Guy I'd provide some links right now, but honestly I'd just be re-googling them, which you can do just as well as I could.

You can make some mental estimates quite easily. The simplest way to do it is think "how many sources of color X do I need to cast my spells by a given turn?" and then apply that to the full deck ratio.

An example: You are playing a deck that needs to make all of its land drops up through 4 lands consistently. If you are on the play, by turn 4 you have drawn 3 extra cards in addition to the 7 you started with. That means that you need at least 4/10ths mana sources to give yourself a good statistical expectation of making 4 land drops once you have seen 10 cards total. Multiply that 4/10 out to a 60 card deck and you see that you need 24 lands to have a reasonable expectation of making your first 4 land drops consecutively while on the play.

Now suppose your deck is base red with a green splash, and you have several two-drops which cost 1G. If you need at least 1 green source by turn 2, that means you need at least 1/8 green sources in your deck, so that works out to about 8 sources of green. In a base red deck with green splash, that shows you could run a manabase like 16 mountain, 4 rootbound crag, 4 forest, and have good expectation of both making your first 4 land drops, and having a green source available on turn 2. Some of the forests could be swapped with Copperline Gorge, depending on how red-intensive your needs are.

mikerpiker · 7 months

Control decks were absolutely too powerful in the late 90s in the glory days of draw-go. A deck with 24+ counterspells supplemented with some card drawing, a couple artifact answers to permanents that made it into play, and then 2 creatures to kill with was one of the dominant archetypes.

Some people enjoy this style and wish it would come back, but I think WotC made the right decision in making the all-counterspell strategy nonviable. There is still effective and useful countermagic that sees a lot of play.

For an example of just how good Draw-Go was back in they day, check out the "CMU Blue" deck that Randy Buehler used to win a pro tour.

icbat · 7 months

They should, right now 1 Lili is still worth close to 4 Koth. Liliana is going down, but is still a very in-demand card. The Stromkirk Nobles are also pretty pricey at the moment. Everything else is cheap though, red decks are usually some of the most budget-friendly.

icbat · 7 months

Sure, it was fairly typical monored apart from the Dragons:

Critters:

4 Stromkirk Noble
2 Grim Lavamancer
2 Spikeshot Elder
2 Stormblood Berserker
4 Chandra's Phoenix
3 Moltensteel Dragon

Zappers:

2 Gut Shot
4 Incinerate
2 Arc Trail
4 Brimstone Volley

Weapons & Walkers:

4 Shrine of Burning Rage
3 Koth of the Hammer

Lands:

22 Mountain
2 Ghost Quarter

Sideboard:

4 Vulshok Refugee
4 Manic Vandal
2 Traitorous Blood
2 Dismember
2 Manabarbs
1 Tumble Magnet

Overall I wanted to reduce my reliance on groundpounders because they are the weakest cards against Wolf Run Ramp, so I maxed out on the Phoenixes and added the Dragons.

mycroftiv

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login