Vaccination

[Mario Petrinovic]

Vaccinate your babies, and fill up your hospitals when they grow old.
Grow less and less old, with every new generation.
He, who didn't manage to understand the Evolution, after 150 years of
the research, he has to get it the hard way.
Ah, what can you do.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 30.8.2021. 23:59, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>         Vaccinate your babies, and fill up your hospitals when they
> grow old.
>         Grow less and less old, with every new generation.
>         He, who didn't manage to understand the Evolution, after 150
> years of the research, he has to get it the hard way.
>         Ah, what can you do.

Because, when science vaccinated those babies, it didn't see them in
the future. Smart people think about the future, scientists have no
evidence, so they don't think. Which is *the evidence* that they don't
have brains. Yet, they are the first one who would swear that humans are
intelligent beings, lol.

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

[John Harshman]

On 8/30/21 2:59 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>         Vaccinate your babies, and fill up your hospitals when they
> grow old.
>         Grow less and less old, with every new generation.
>         He, who didn't manage to understand the Evolution, after 150
> years of the research, he has to get it the hard way.
>         Ah, what can you do.
>

In contrast to your usual nonsense, this sort of thing is actively
dangerous, or would be if you managed to convince anyone of it.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Jesus Christ.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 31.8.2021. 4:18, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 31.8.2021. 3:01, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/30/21 2:59 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>          Vaccinate your babies, and fill up your hospitals when they
>>> grow old.
>>>          Grow less and less old, with every new generation.
>>>          He, who didn't manage to understand the Evolution, after 150
>>> years of the research, he has to get it the hard way.
>>>          Ah, what can you do.
>>>
>> In contrast to your usual nonsense, this sort of thing is actively
>> dangerous, or would be if you managed to convince anyone of it.
>
>         Jesus Christ.

My advice to you, *never* inject anything into your body. Injection
bypasses all the defense mechanisms, when you inject something, your
body doesn't have a chance to react to it, you surrendered your body,
flat down.

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

[John Harshman]

I am disinclined to follow any advice you might ever have for me.
Fortunately.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Yes, but bypassing defense mechanisms is the thing that is dangerous.

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

[John Harshman]

Yes, and those mRNA vaccines change your DNA and make you magnetic.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Well, that's your theory.

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

[John Harshman]

Is this really all about injection? That's a completely different
justification from your previous one. Do you object to dental
anesthetic? Do you endorse oral vaccines such as the one for polio?

[Mario Petrinovic]

No, it isn't about injection, it is about vaccination. I just
mentioned what you do when you put a needle in your body. This is the
purpose of needle (I presume), to bypass your defense mechanism.
I would to it, with a pine needle, to burst a cyst. But other than
that, no.

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

[John Harshman]

Now I'm curious: why a pine needle specifically? Why not a rusty nail or
a toothpick?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Because this was how we always did this.
You think that the world should be sterile, otherwise you are unable
to live in it? I have a surprise for you, the world isn't sterile, and
if you are unable to live in the world as it is, well, too bad for you.

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

[John Harshman]

That's just nonsensical. The world as it is includes lions, yet I
refrain from stepping out in front of them while wearing a pork chop
around my neck. The world as it is includes steep cliffs, yet I refrain
from walking straight off them just because I'm going in that direction.

I will also point out that vaccines do nothing except introduce antigens
into your blood just like those present in live pathogens. They don't
weaken your immune system. They stimulate it in exactly the same way
those pathogens would. They certainly don't weaken your immune system or
encourage weakness. Just the opposite.

[Mario Petrinovic]

The world, as it is, includes pine needles. It doesn't include sterile
equipment.
So, there are two ways to do it, with a pine needle, or with sterile
equipment. To do the first, you just find a pine needle. To do the
second, you just...
In Evolution the key word is "efficiency". He, who is efficient, he
wins. So, I can, either, use pine needles, and the rest leave for my
body to deal with, or I can use a lot more energy, and equipment, to do
*the same thing*. I refuse to do things the second way, I have to be
efficient to survive.
The whole world had bubonic plague. The whole world, except India. Why?
And, regarding vaccination, your analogy is excellent. Vaccination
introduces antigens into your blood, that work "just like" the real
things. Like a boxer, who is using a boxing bag to train and be strong.
Well, I have news for you, boxing bag isn't enough. It *has to be* a
live opponent.
I mean, all the newest research show that the problem with Covid-19 is
in our immune system, not in virus. It is used to boxing bags, not to
the real things. Boxing bags don't fight back.
They say that somebody who was ill and not vaccinated, and survived,
has 7 times better immunity than the one who was vaccinated. I mean,
there is a reason for it. It is hard to prove the reason. Scientists
behave like they are idiots, if it isn't proven, it doesn't happen. They
behave so stupidly, like they are 6 years old.
This isn't a game.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

I have to add this. Throughout our evolution we used the system that
gave 7 times better immunity than vaccination. A lot of us died using
this system , but the ones who survived, they had good and strong immune
system. Then we introduced the system which gave us 7 times weaker
immune system, but we all survived. At first. And now we stopped to all
survive. And we have problems. Our whole health care system simply
collapsed. I mean, don't you see what is happening around you? People
walk around with muzzles on their months. You say, we can do it. I say,
go to hell. I'll rather die. This isn't a life a dignified animal should
live. I am a human, for god's sake. But, I don't look very much like it,
with this muzzle on my mouth.
What's next? You say, you use sterile equipment, because you can. Will
we walk around this planet in a space suit, because we can? Because you
say that you have a better system than the Nature already evolved. So,
why you are walking around this world with this muzzle on your mouth?

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

So, I'd rather use a pine needle than your sterile equipment. And yes,
it will be bad for me, because I have more chance to die that way. But,
this way it would be much better for *us*, because, for sure, *we* will
survive, the society will survive, the strongest *will* survive, for sure.
So, I am suggesting to this society, whoever is using sterile
equipment, just stone him. He is a selfish idiot, who doesn't think what
this will mean for society, he only thinks what this will mean for him,
he doesn't care about the society. Society should stone those people, if
it is a smart society, led my smart old men, not by playful young idiots.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

But, our society, unfortunately, is led by scientists, a type of
people who never grew up. Instead of growing up, they wasted their
"growing up" time on their education.

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

[John Harshman]

To anyone who may be reading this, if indeed there is anyone: I
apologize for poking him. I will stop now.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I mean, "growing up" *is* education. But, education about life, not
education about some parts of life.
But, we diversified our resources, we have tongue, we can communicate,
some of us will do one thing, some others will do another, each will
become expert on each particular thing, and that way we all will be
experts in everything. And that's perfectly fine. Only, the mind that
leads you through your life shouldn't be expert in one thing, but idiot
on all the other things. This is like, one mind is excellent at looking
(but he doesn't hear a thing), another one is excellent at hearing (but
he doesn't see).

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

Your usual "exit strategy". I've gotten used to it, lol.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

BTW, "Black Death" was a bubonic plague, 670 years ago. 1/3 of
population died, but 670 years on we are still here.
Bubonic plague is very hard illness, and we survived. Covid-19 is a
mild virosis, and we are dying from it. Will we be here 670 years from
now to talk about it?

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

[erik simpson]

No apology necessary. But this latest rant he's on confirms to me that he's just a
troll. I still have the probably unjustifiable belief that you can't be that stupid and still
be alive.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Well, if you are a human, you can be stupid, and still be alive.
But, not for long.

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

[*Hemidactylus*]

A recent meme I saw captures it well. EMS is loading a guy in dire need of
medical help on a gurney into an ambulance. He asks if they are
transporting him to the hospital. One of the emergency medics says no,
instead they are taking him to the experts in the “comments section”.
Priceless. Such idiocy now abounds.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Maybe just really lucky.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Peter, you are overrating those guys, they are stupid, not worth your
time.

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

[Mark Isaak]

The bubonic plague did hit India.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Oxyaena]

Careful now, Mario is the server's esteemed resident polymath numero
duo, after the all-knowing mathematician himself. Insults to such an
accomplished figure are severely unwarranted.

[Oxyaena]

I don't know, one look at Peter proves that one can *indeed* be that
stupid and somehow end up a tenured professor.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Careful with that vaccination, Eugene.
https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk

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

[John Harshman]

Should have said "Careful with that vax", but kudos for the Pink Floyd
reference.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ah, thanks.
I'm always glad to learn more English.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:51:31 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/2/2021 11:30 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 9:21:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:

I've snipped a bunch of things that I will have to reprimand Mario about,
but first, I need to defend my reputation, because no one -- not even Mario --
will do it for me, whereas there are several who are still willing to defend the
reputation of Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon.

> >> To anyone who may be reading this, if indeed there is anyone: I
> >> apologize for poking him. I will stop now.
> >
> > No apology necessary. But this latest rant he's on confirms to me that he's just a
> > troll. I still have the probably unjustifiable belief that you can't be that stupid and still
> > be alive.

> I don't know,

Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena knows, but finds it much more rewarding to be loved
by people named below for pretending otherwise:

> one look at Peter proves that one can *indeed* be that
> stupid and somehow end up a tenured professor.

Of course, Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon knows better than to tell anyone
what, if anything, "that stupid" refers to: it would ruin the whole effect.

One look at the posting history of Thrinaxodon, having tried for six years to reinvent herself as Oxyaena,
shows how a dog returns to his/her vomit at last.

And Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena can do it as long as 'e wants, because Harshman, Simpson, Hemidactylus,
Mark Issaak, jillery, and others who show up too infrequently on sci.bio.paleontology to be worth
mentioning, can be counted on to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about that vomit.

The most you will ever see is the way Harshman played "good cop" to "bad cop" Oxyaena,
when the latter puked all over me for not knowing about a Mesozoic gliding mammal,
saying that one shouldn't be so nasty right off the bat to "even someone like Peter."

Harshman exited the thread when Oxyaena proved to be too hatefully incorrigible,
and so he missed how I later discovered the thread and admitted to my carelessness
in not having specified "Cenozoic gliding mammal".

To my mind it was clear from the way bat ancestry was the theme, and no gliding mammals
have been found among fossils within the whole of Eutheria, let alone the crown group Placentalia,
before modern bats are found in the fossil record.

Eutheria split off from Metatheria (marsupials and kin) well back in the Cretaceous, so "Cenozoic"
was understating the case, but there was no need for overkill.


I wonder whether this incident was what Oxyaena had in mind when writing "that stupid." The way
'e kept referring to me as "Professor Asshat" on that thread, it is certainly possible.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 9/6/21 5:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:51:31 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/2/2021 11:30 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 9:21:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> I've snipped a bunch of things that I will have to reprimand Mario about,

You really should get on with that.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 11:47:13 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 1.9.2021. 22:56, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/1/21 11:07 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 1.9.2021. 18:56, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 8/31/21 11:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 1.9.2021. 3:12, John Harshman wrote:

> >>>>> Is this really all about injection? That's a completely different
> >>>>> justification from your previous one. Do you object to dental
> >>>>> anesthetic? Do you endorse oral vaccines such as the one for polio?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, it isn't about injection, it is about vaccination. I
> >>>> just mentioned what you do when you put a needle in your body. This
> >>>> is the purpose of needle (I presume), to bypass your defense mechanism.

Wrong, Mario. It is to give your defense mechanism more of
a sporting chance. Please read far enough to see what I mean by this.


<snip for focus>

> > I will also point out that vaccines do nothing except introduce antigens
> > into your blood just like those present in live pathogens. They don't
> > weaken your immune system. They stimulate it in exactly the same way
> > those pathogens would. They certainly don't weaken your immune system or
> > encourage weakness. Just the opposite.

Harshman was being very sensible here, Mario, but you seem to have
lost sight of his main point.

<snip for focus>

> And, regarding vaccination, your analogy is excellent. Vaccination
> introduces antigens into your blood, that work "just like" the real
> things. Like a boxer, who is using a boxing bag to train and be strong.

WRONG! It is like a boxer, working out with a sparring partner when
training to fight someone whose tactics the sparring partner can
train him to counteract.

> Well, I have news for you, boxing bag isn't enough. It *has to be* a
> live opponent.

You have completely missed the point.

Vaccination is exactly like admitting a sparring partner into your gym
who is superb at imitating the professional whom it would be terribly risky
to fight without plenty of training. Only, except in rare cases, your vaccine "sparring partner"
knows better than to deal blows that could hurt you badly.

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?

This is contrary to all experience. Yes, you could have adverse effects; one
secretary who got the Moderna vaccine said she felt as though her arm would
fall off after the first dose. But it only lasted for a few days, and the second dose
wasn't nearly as bad.

It's like hiring a sparring partner who needs some experience to figure out
how to spar with you without you hurting yourself. For instance, you might get a bloody nose
by moving your head the wrong way when the two of you go into a clinch.
But he'll show you the right way to clinch if you are patient.

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 mean, all the newest research show that the problem with Covid-19 is
> in our immune system, not in virus. It is used to boxing bags, not to
> the real things. Boxing bags don't fight back.

You are on the right track, but you aren't connecting the dots sufficiently.
A vaccine is not at all like a boxing bag. I hope I've made that clear.

And please take the following to heart. Without prior exposure to the coronavirus,
you are unlikely to have any antibodies that protect you from it, and your immune
system has no memory that a prior exposure gives of what kinds of antibodies
to crank out.

And so, it has to figure out by trial and error when the virus invades. And while
it is figuring it out, the virus multiplies fast enough to be in a good position
to overwhelm your system before enough antibodies can be produced.

> 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.

> I mean, there is a reason for it. It is hard to prove the reason.

Yes, "They say" just doesn't cut it.

> Scientists behave like they are idiots, if it isn't proven, it doesn't happen.

Do NOT confuse Harshman, the only one here with a degree in biology [although
I suspect Pandora has one and is a far better scientist than Harshman] with
a scientist who hasn't forgotten how to teach adults.

Harshman has been spoiled rotten by the other people I've named up there,
and others like them, and also fans who know even less than they do,
into thinking that a few well chosen words by him -- and the ones up there WERE
well chosen -- should work magic in the minds of the people who read them.
If they don't, he figures it's their fault.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Mario Petrinovic]

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:
>>> On 9/1/21 11:07 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 1.9.2021. 18:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/31/21 11:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 3:12, John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Is this really all about injection? That's a completely different
>>>>>>> justification from your previous one. Do you object to dental
>>>>>>> anesthetic? Do you endorse oral vaccines such as the one for polio?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't about injection, it is about vaccination. I
>>>>>> just mentioned what you do when you put a needle in your body. This
>>>>>> is the purpose of needle (I presume), to bypass your defense mechanism.
>
> Wrong, Mario. It is to give your defense mechanism more of
> a sporting chance. Please read far enough to see what I mean by this.

Well, why we don't swallow it, or inhale? Because in that case, our
body would process it, wouldn't it? And spit it out. Our body controls
our inhalation and what we swallow.

>>> I will also point out that vaccines do nothing except introduce antigens
>>> into your blood just like those present in live pathogens. They don't
>>> weaken your immune system. They stimulate it in exactly the same way
>>> those pathogens would. They certainly don't weaken your immune system or
>>> encourage weakness. Just the opposite.
>
> Harshman was being very sensible here, Mario, but you seem to have
> lost sight of his main point.

>> And, regarding vaccination, your analogy is excellent. Vaccination
>> introduces antigens into your blood, that work "just like" the real
>> things. Like a boxer, who is using a boxing bag to train and be strong.
>
> WRONG! It is like a boxer, working out with a sparring partner when
> training to fight someone whose tactics the sparring partner can
> train him to counteract.

WRONG! I mean, those things are LEGO cubes, aren't they? You say that
we created something that is alive, and with its own mind, and
everything? No, we didn't. I very much doubt. And that we "programmed"
it to work like the "real thing". So, why don't you create a sparring
partner for a boxer to train, instead using a live humans?

>> Well, I have news for you, boxing bag isn't enough. It *has to be* a
>> live opponent.
>
> You have completely missed the point.
>
> Vaccination is exactly like admitting a sparring partner into your gym
> who is superb at imitating the professional whom it would be terribly risky
> to fight without plenty of training. Only, except in rare cases, your vaccine "sparring partner"
> knows better than to deal blows that could hurt you badly.

Hm, in somebody's dreams.

> 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?

Not at all (it is you who missed the point). I explained it in detail,
I am claiming that our immune system will become worse, less agile and
it will be disoriented, if vaccination "helps" him to work. Just like I
mentioned cars that "help" us to walk.

> This is contrary to all experience. Yes, you could have adverse effects; one
> secretary who got the Moderna vaccine said she felt as though her arm would
> fall off after the first dose. But it only lasted for a few days, and the second dose
> wasn't nearly as bad.
>
> It's like hiring a sparring partner who needs some experience to figure out
> how to spar with you without you hurting yourself. For instance, you might get a bloody nose
> by moving your head the wrong way when the two of you go into a clinch.
> But he'll show you the right way to clinch if you are patient.

No, it is nothing like that. It is like using robots to be sparring
partners. They will never be good enough. And, by saying this, I was
more than generous in comparing robots to this thing.

> 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? It is
NOT caused by the virus. It is that, weak organisms are destroyed by our
immune system that lost its calibration.
See, you have short people, you have tall people. But, you don't have
people 2 miles high, nor you have people 2 millimeters short. There are
some proportions, and some buffer zone for variations, that is embedded
in us. All humans are between 0.5 meters and 3 meters.
And the same goes for everything. This is how things work, things
don't behave like they are mad. But, our immune system blew up those
proportions, and inflict our bodies too hard. If organism is too weak,
it will not withstand that pressure. And exactly this is what is
happening, weak organisms die because our immune system is working too
hard. Virus isn't the problem at all, it is the not-adjusted work of our
immune system that is the problem. Our immune system isn't sure,
anymore, how hard it should work. It is confused, it is disoriented.

>> I mean, all the newest research show that the problem with Covid-19 is
>> in our immune system, not in virus. It is used to boxing bags, not to
>> the real things. Boxing bags don't fight back.
>
> You are on the right track, but you aren't connecting the dots sufficiently.
> A vaccine is not at all like a boxing bag. I hope I've made that clear.

No, you didn't. You are under the impression that humans managed to
create some Supermen that fights viruses. No, humans didn't manage to
create in few months something that nature spent 4 billion years to
create. Forget it.
Scientists created only some vague fake thing, nothing more, the most
rough thing you can imagine. What do you think is inside this needle?
Some generic crap, that happens to help somehow, nobody knows *exactly*
how. Because nobody knows *exactly* what is happening inside. Some guy,
100 years ago, used some dead virus, injected it, and it happened that
it works, somehow. And that's about it, no Supermen from movies, or from
Star Trek series.
A car is far more sophisticated than vaccine. Because you can see it,
you can understand the forces, you know what it needs to do, you design
it in tune with that knowledge. The design of vaccination is nothing
like that. Nobody knows what exactly it is doing, will it be good for
pregnant women, will it affect those below the age of 16, everybody is
extremely cautious, because nobody knows what is, actually, going on?

> And please take the following to heart. Without prior exposure to the coronavirus,
> you are unlikely to have any antibodies that protect you from it, and your immune
> system has no memory that a prior exposure gives of what kinds of antibodies
> to crank out.
>
> And so, it has to figure out by trial and error when the virus invades. And while
> it is figuring it out, the virus multiplies fast enough to be in a good position
> to overwhelm your system before enough antibodies can be produced.

Hm, strangely, young people have everything that is necessary, for
them this is only a mild thing.

>> 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?
And this is the problem with vaccination. Our immune system fights
diseases guided by a vaccine. This makes him less fit. Because we all
will be less fit, we all will die if we continue to use vaccination.
This Covid-19 thing is just the first glimpse of the shape of things to
come. It'll be worse and worse, this is just the first glimpse.

>> I mean, there is a reason for it. It is hard to prove the reason.
>
> Yes, "They say" just doesn't cut it.
>
>
>> Scientists behave like they are idiots, if it isn't proven, it doesn't happen.
>
> Do NOT confuse Harshman, the only one here with a degree in biology [although
> I suspect Pandora has one and is a far better scientist than Harshman] with
> a scientist who hasn't forgotten how to teach adults.
>
> Harshman has been spoiled rotten by the other people I've named up there,
> and others like them, and also fans who know even less than they do,
> into thinking that a few well chosen words by him -- and the ones up there WERE
> well chosen -- should work magic in the minds of the people who read them.
> If they don't, he figures it's their fault.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 7.9.2021. 4:51, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>         And this is the problem with vaccination. Our immune system
> fights diseases guided by a vaccine. This makes him less fit. Because we
> all will be less fit, we all will die if we continue to use vaccination.
> This Covid-19 thing is just the first glimpse of the shape of things to
> come. It'll be worse and worse, this is just the first glimpse.

Actually, this is excellent analogy. Fighting viruses with vaccines is
like if a perfectly fit man (the immune system) would let be guided by a
blind man (a vaccine). See? This is what this actually is. A perfectly
fit boxer guided by a boxing beg.

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

[Oxyaena]

On 9/6/2021 8:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:51:31 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/2/2021 11:30 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 9:21:02 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>
> I've snipped a bunch of things that I will have to reprimand Mario about,

So get on with it then.

> but first, I need to defend my reputation, because no one -- not even Mario --
> will do it for me, whereas there are several who are still willing to defend the
> reputation of Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon.

Maybe cause your reputation isn't worth shit.

>
>>>> To anyone who may be reading this, if indeed there is anyone: I
>>>> apologize for poking him. I will stop now.
>>>
>>> No apology necessary. But this latest rant he's on confirms to me that he's just a
>>> troll. I still have the probably unjustifiable belief that you can't be that stupid and still
>>> be alive.
>
>> I don't know,
>
> Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena knows, but finds it much more rewarding to be loved
> by people named below for pretending otherwise:

I do indeed know that you are a giant jackoff.

>
>> one look at Peter proves that one can *indeed* be that
>> stupid and somehow end up a tenured professor.
>
> Of course, Oxyaena/Thrinaxodon knows better than to tell anyone
> what, if anything, "that stupid" refers to: it would ruin the whole effect.

You're too dense to get what I refer to. It's blindingly obvious to
anyone that's not named "Peter Nyikos".

>
> One look at the posting history of Thrinaxodon, having tried for six years to reinvent herself as Oxyaena,
> shows how a dog returns to his/her vomit at last.

You've been saying things to the exact same effect for the last six
years now. One wonders how many transformations and reverse
transformations I have undergone since then, at least according to you.

>
> And Thrinaxodon/Oxyaena can do it as long as 'e wants,

You do realize my pronouns are "she/her" right? You were perfectly fine
referring to me by those pronouns until this post, in which you stopped
doing so presumably out of spite. Typical.

> because Harshman, Simpson, Hemidactylus,
> Mark Issaak, jillery, and others who show up too infrequently on sci.bio.paleontology to be worth
> mentioning, can be counted on to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about that vomit.

You and Mario are the ones puking all over the electronic floorboard.

>
> The most you will ever see is the way Harshman played "good cop" to "bad cop" Oxyaena,
> when the latter puked all over me for not knowing about a Mesozoic gliding mammal,
> saying that one shouldn't be so nasty right off the bat to "even someone like Peter."
>
> Harshman exited the thread when Oxyaena proved to be too hatefully incorrigible,
> and so he missed how I later discovered the thread and admitted to my carelessness
> in not having specified "Cenozoic gliding mammal".

Damage control mode activated.

>
> To my mind it was clear from the way bat ancestry was the theme, and no gliding mammals
> have been found among fossils within the whole of Eutheria, let alone the crown group Placentalia,
> before modern bats are found in the fossil record.

Here we see Peter continues to operate in "damage control mode."

>
> Eutheria split off from Metatheria (marsupials and kin) well back in the Cretaceous, so "Cenozoic"
> was understating the case, but there was no need for overkill.

Peter continues to operate in "damage control mode."

>
>
> I wonder whether this incident was what Oxyaena had in mind when writing "that stupid." The way
> 'e kept referring to me as "Professor Asshat" on that thread, it is certainly possible.

I was calling you that out of spite. It's also an accurate title, but I
digress.

[John Harshman]

Thanks?

[John Harshman]

On 9/6/21 7:51 PM, 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:
>>>> On 9/1/21 11:07 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 18:56, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/21 11:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 3:12, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Is this really all about injection? That's a completely different
>>>>>>>> justification from your previous one. Do you object to dental
>>>>>>>> anesthetic? Do you endorse oral vaccines such as the one for polio?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't about injection, it is about vaccination. I
>>>>>>> just mentioned what you do when you put a needle in your body. This
>>>>>>> is the purpose of needle (I presume), to bypass your defense
>>>>>>> mechanism.
>>
>> Wrong, Mario. It is to give your defense mechanism more of
>> a sporting chance. Please read far enough to see what I mean by this.
>
>         Well, why we don't swallow it, or inhale? Because in that case,
> our body would process it, wouldn't it? And spit it out. Our body
> controls our inhalation and what we swallow.

But you've also said that you disapprove of oral vaccines too. Try to
keep your story straight.

>>>> I will also point out that vaccines do nothing except introduce
>>>> antigens
>>>> into your blood just like those present in live pathogens. They don't
>>>> weaken your immune system. They stimulate it in exactly the same way
>>>> those pathogens would. They certainly don't weaken your immune
>>>> system or
>>>> encourage weakness. Just the opposite.
>>
>> Harshman was being very sensible here, Mario, but you seem to have
>> lost sight of his main point.
>
>>> And, regarding vaccination, your analogy is excellent. Vaccination
>>> introduces antigens into your blood, that work "just like" the real
>>> things. Like a boxer, who is using a boxing bag to train and be strong.
>>
>> WRONG! It is like a boxer, working out with a sparring partner when
>> training to fight someone whose tactics the sparring partner can
>> train him to counteract.
>
>         WRONG! I mean, those things are LEGO cubes, aren't they? You
> say that we created something that is alive, and with its own mind, and
> everything? No, we didn't. I very much doubt. And that we "programmed"
> it to work like the "real thing". So, why don't you create a sparring
> partner for a boxer to train, instead using a live humans?

All analogies break down. This one breaks down sooner than many. But you
did completely miss its point. It's not the fact that the analogical
sparring partner is alive with his own mind that counts. It's that he
teaches you how to fight a deadly opponent. And "teaches" is another
poor analogy. You (your immune system) just learns from the example.
("Learns" is also a metaphor, of course.)

And your immune system gets nothing from a live virus that it doesn't
get from the spike protein alone.

>>> Well, I have news for you, boxing bag isn't enough. It *has to be* a
>>> live opponent.
>>
>> You have completely missed the point.
>>
>> Vaccination is exactly like admitting a sparring partner into your gym
>> who is superb at imitating the professional whom it would be terribly
>> risky
>> to fight without plenty of training. Only, except in rare cases, your
>> vaccine "sparring partner"
>>   knows better than to deal blows that could hurt you badly.
>
>         Hm, in somebody's dreams.
>
>> 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?
>
>         Not at all (it is you who missed the point). I explained it in
> detail, I am claiming that our immune system will become worse, less
> agile and it will be disoriented, if vaccination "helps" him to work.
> Just like I mentioned cars that "help" us to walk.

That's a strong claim. But what backs it up? "Agile" and "disoriented"
are more bad metaphors. How does responding to an antigen weaken the
immune system?

>> This is contrary to all experience. Yes, you could have adverse
>> effects; one
>> secretary who got the Moderna vaccine said she felt as though her arm
>> would
>> fall off after the first dose. But it only lasted for a few days, and
>> the second dose
>> wasn't nearly as bad.
>>
>> It's like hiring a sparring partner who needs some experience to
>> figure out
>> how to spar with you without you hurting yourself. For instance, you
>> might get a bloody nose
>> by moving your head the wrong way when the two of you go into a clinch.
>> But he'll show you the right way to clinch if you are patient.
>
>         No, it is nothing like that. It is like using robots to be
> sparring partners. They will never be good enough. And, by saying this,
> I was more than generous in comparing robots to this thing.

You are lost in analogies. Instead you should consider the actual system.

>> 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? It is NOT caused by the virus. It is that, weak organisms are
> destroyed by our immune system that lost its calibration.
>         See, you have short people, you have tall people. But, you
> don't have people 2 miles high, nor you have people 2 millimeters short.
> There are some proportions, and some buffer zone for variations, that is
> embedded in us. All humans are between 0.5 meters and 3 meters.
>         And the same goes for everything. This is how things work,
> things don't behave like they are mad. But, our immune system blew up
> those proportions, and inflict our bodies too hard. If organism is too
> weak, it will not withstand that pressure. And exactly this is what is
> happening, weak organisms die because our immune system is working too
> hard. Virus isn't the problem at all, it is the not-adjusted work of our
> immune system that is the problem. Our immune system isn't sure,
> anymore, how hard it should work. It is confused, it is disoriented.

Please provide support for this odd contention from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, which doesn't include some comment you read on
some random web site.

>>> I mean, all the newest research show that the problem with Covid-19 is
>>> in our immune system, not in virus. It is used to boxing bags, not to
>>> the real things. Boxing bags don't fight back.
>>
>> You are on the right track, but you aren't connecting the dots
>> sufficiently.
>> A vaccine is not at all like a boxing bag. I hope I've made that clear.
>
>         No, you didn't. You are under the impression that humans
> managed to create some Supermen that fights viruses. No, humans didn't
> manage to create in few months something that nature spent 4 billion
> years to create. Forget it.
>         Scientists created only some vague fake thing, nothing more,
> the most rough thing you can imagine. What do you think is inside this
> needle? Some generic crap, that happens to help somehow, nobody knows
> *exactly* how. Because nobody knows *exactly* what is happening inside.
> Some guy, 100 years ago, used some dead virus, injected it, and it
> happened that it works, somehow. And that's about it, no Supermen from
> movies, or from Star Trek series.

This isn't true. We know exactly how vaccines work. And covid vaccines
contain either spike proteins or mRNAs that are translated to produce
spike proteins.

>         A car is far more sophisticated than vaccine. Because you can
> see it, you can understand the forces, you know what it needs to do, you
> design it in tune with that knowledge. The design of vaccination is
> nothing like that. Nobody knows what exactly it is doing, will it be
> good for pregnant women, will it affect those below the age of 16,
> everybody is extremely cautious, because nobody knows what is, actually,
> going on?
>
>> And please take the following to heart. Without prior exposure to the
>> coronavirus,
>> you are unlikely to have any antibodies that protect you from it, and
>> your immune
>> system has no memory that a prior exposure gives of what kinds of
>> antibodies
>> to crank out.
>>
>> And so, it has to figure out by trial and error when the virus
>> invades. And while
>> it is figuring it out, the virus multiplies fast enough to be in a
>> good position
>> to overwhelm your system before enough antibodies can be produced.
>
>         Hm, strangely, young people have everything that is necessary,
> for them this is only a mild thing.

Not any more.

>>> 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?
>         And this is the problem with vaccination. Our immune system
> fights diseases guided by a vaccine. This makes him less fit. Because we
> all will be less fit, we all will die if we continue to use vaccination.
> This Covid-19 thing is just the first glimpse of the shape of things to
> come. It'll be worse and worse, this is just the first glimpse.

You haven't explained how vaccines make you less fit.

>>> I mean, there is a reason for it. It is hard to prove the reason.
>>
>> Yes, "They say" just doesn't cut it.

Peter is asking you to support your claim. You ignored him. Why?

[Peter Nyikos]

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:
> >>> On 9/1/21 11:07 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 1.9.2021. 18:56, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/31/21 11:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1.9.2021. 3:12, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Is this really all about injection? That's a completely different
> >>>>>>> justification from your previous one. Do you object to dental
> >>>>>>> anesthetic? Do you endorse oral vaccines such as the one for polio?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, it isn't about injection, it is about vaccination. I
> >>>>>> just mentioned what you do when you put a needle in your body. This
> >>>>>> is the purpose of needle (I presume), to bypass your defense mechanism.
> >
> > Wrong, Mario. It is to give your defense mechanism more of
> > a sporting chance. Please read far enough to see what I mean by this.

> Well, why we don't swallow it, or inhale?

Because there is no Covid-19 vaccine that we can swallow or inhale.

> Because in that case, our
> body would process it, wouldn't it?

It processes the oral polio vaccine. Our mouths are not sufficiently finely
tuned to recognize dangerous substances. Many people die yearly because they
eat mushrooms that are deadly poison, like *Amanita phaillodes* and *Amanita virosa*.

> And spit it out. Our body controls
> our inhalation and what we swallow.

By "defense mechanism," were you completely ignoring your immune system?
I thought that this WAS what you meant, and I meant "giving your immune system a sporting chance".

> >>> I will also point out that vaccines do nothing except introduce antigens
> >>> into your blood just like those present in live pathogens. They don't
> >>> weaken your immune system. They stimulate it in exactly the same way
> >>> those pathogens would. They certainly don't weaken your immune system or
> >>> encourage weakness. Just the opposite.
> >
> > Harshman was being very sensible here, Mario, but you seem to have
> > lost sight of his main point.

> >> And, regarding vaccination, your analogy is excellent. Vaccination
> >> introduces antigens into your blood, that work "just like" the real
> >> things. Like a boxer, who is using a boxing bag to train and be strong.
> >
> > WRONG! It is like a boxer, working out with a sparring partner when
> > training to fight someone whose tactics the sparring partner can
> > train him to counteract.

> WRONG! I mean, those things are LEGO cubes, aren't they?

RNA is not a bunch of Lego cubes. Please try to make sense. And please don't parrot
words like "WRONG!" unless you are prepared to back up what follows
in whatever depth is necessary, like I am.

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

> You say that we created something that is alive, and with its own mind, and
> everything?

PLEASE try to understand vaccine basics. The mRNA in the Pfizer and Moderna
vaccines is a polynucleotide that has been isolated from SARS-CoV-2 and
verified not to contain recognition sequences that are irrelevant to the spike
protein being translated from it by the ribosomes in the cells.

Do you not understand the enormous number of things that are neither Legos
nor living things with their own minds? How much do you know about
biochemistry? It is intermediate but far removed from both extremes.

> No, we didn't. I very much doubt.

I'm glad you very much doubt a figment of your imagination, which nobody in sci.bio.paleontology
ever hinted at until you came along and did it just now.

> And that we "programmed"
> it to work like the "real thing".

It IS the real thing that is translated into spike protein from those Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
If they had tried to program it to be anything else, it would have been completely useless against Covid-19.

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


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

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.

PPS After I composed the PS, but before I sent this post off, Harshman also expressed a (less high) degree
of disappointment. It will be interesting to see his reaction, if any, to THIS post.

[John Harshman]

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:

Was that really necessary?

Or this?:

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

Your inability to avoid gratuitous insults directed at third parties is
not a virtue. Why not try to resist the impulse? It adds nothing to your
posts.

> 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. Mario will not be budged. It would help (well, no, nothing
would actually help) to illuminate more of his inconsistencies. 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.

[Peter Nyikos]

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."

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?

[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.

> 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.
Let me be the judge of whether it helps or not.

> 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?
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.

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.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

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."

[By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen that fights viruses"?]


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.

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.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Mario Petrinovic]

But I also said that these are two separate topics. I said that,
*whatever you do*, don't go around your defense mechanism. But, *apart
from that*, don't drive in your car every day if you need to be good runner.
Those two are two separate topics, and there is no reason to omit the
second topic in this thread just to make my story more straight, because
it is closely related.

Ok, I will not go into it why this isn't true, I'll try to explain it
the other, simpler, way.
Imagine if our system needs to rise body temperature to fight illness.
Then you introduce some pill that controls the body temperature, and it
is a perfect pill, does exactly what you want it to do.
Well, illness has its own tempo it has its curve of activity, and our
system is used to it, it knows it very well, and it adjusts to it. But
then you introduce this pill, which messes up this whole process.
Instead of our system gets better used with every new illness, now our
system is more and more confused with every new illness. Why? Because it
doesn't count on the effect of the pill, it doesn't control the amount
of pills that you intake into system, it isn't in control, now your
doctor wants to be in control of your body. Well, if your doctor wants
to be in control, then let him be the system. It cannot be that two
captains are on one ship.
The other thing is that your doctor doesn't know a sh.t about the
whole process (he is only learning, but probably he will not know enough
even after few thousand years of learning), while your system is adapted
to it, and knows what he needs to know. Yet, your doctor really wants to
be in control of the whole thing. Well...

>>>> Well, I have news for you, boxing bag isn't enough. It *has to be* a
>>>> live opponent.
>>>
>>> You have completely missed the point.
>>>
>>> Vaccination is exactly like admitting a sparring partner into your gym
>>> who is superb at imitating the professional whom it would be terribly
>>> risky
>>> to fight without plenty of training. Only, except in rare cases, your
>>> vaccine "sparring partner"
>>>   knows better than to deal blows that could hurt you badly.
>>
>>          Hm, in somebody's dreams.
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>          Not at all (it is you who missed the point). I explained it
>> in detail, I am claiming that our immune system will become worse,
>> less agile and it will be disoriented, if vaccination "helps" him to
>> work. Just like I mentioned cars that "help" us to walk.
>
> That's a strong claim. But what backs it up? "Agile" and "disoriented"
> are more bad metaphors. How does responding to an antigen weaken the
> immune system?

When virus comes, the system needs to respond to virus, not to
something else. You say that it responds to antigen *like* it would
respond to virus. Ok, its perfectly alright. The only thing is that now
the system responds to virus *like* it would respond to antigen. But,
there is no antigen yet. So, what does the system do? He goes mad.

Why? I know my thing, I am writing to help other people. If you don't
want to be helped, just like people in Afghanistan, that's alright with me.
I don't expect science to give such papers. Science wants to be in
control, there will never be a science paper which says that scientific
way isn't the way. Science does thing in scientific ways.
In Croatia, one prominent scientist (which is attacked by *less*
prominent scientists) said publicly that the ones who vaccinated have 7
times less ability to fight virus than the ones who went through illness
without vaccination. It is he who is the expert, it is he who says that
research showed this. I can imagine that science wouldn't give enough
weight to this research, and that it would have hard time to place it in
the context that I am placing it.

>>>> I mean, all the newest research show that the problem with Covid-19 is
>>>> in our immune system, not in virus. It is used to boxing bags, not to
>>>> the real things. Boxing bags don't fight back.
>>>
>>> You are on the right track, but you aren't connecting the dots
>>> sufficiently.
>>> A vaccine is not at all like a boxing bag. I hope I've made that clear.
>>
>>          No, you didn't. You are under the impression that humans
>> managed to create some Supermen that fights viruses. No, humans didn't
>> manage to create in few months something that nature spent 4 billion
>> years to create. Forget it.
>>          Scientists created only some vague fake thing, nothing more,
>> the most rough thing you can imagine. What do you think is inside this
>> needle? Some generic crap, that happens to help somehow, nobody knows
>> *exactly* how. Because nobody knows *exactly* what is happening
>> inside. Some guy, 100 years ago, used some dead virus, injected it,
>> and it happened that it works, somehow. And that's about it, no
>> Supermen from movies, or from Star Trek series.
>
> This isn't true. We know exactly how vaccines work. And covid vaccines
> contain either spike proteins or mRNAs that are translated to produce
> spike proteins.

Just like I explained it above with a temperature pill. You may know
how turning wheel in a car performs, exactly, but yet, you can never
know for how much you have to turn your wheel in a given turn.
Those things aren't so simple, as simple are the minds of scientists,
although scientists would really like things to be that simple that they
can comprehend it. But they aren't. Simple as that. And they never will
be. It is really large conceit to be convinced that you know everything.
How come somebody comes to such an idea, is beyond me?
And here I am, and I say that people don't know everything, and all
those people are after me, claiming that they know everything. It's a
bit funny, you know.
And then you come to me, and ask me, if people don't know something,
well tell me what we don't know. Lol, well, I know even less, but one
thing I do know, I know that I don't know everything, and whoever claims
that he knows everything, it is he who is nuts, not me.

>>          A car is far more sophisticated than vaccine. Because you can
>> see it, you can understand the forces, you know what it needs to do,
>> you design it in tune with that knowledge. The design of vaccination
>> is nothing like that. Nobody knows what exactly it is doing, will it
>> be good for pregnant women, will it affect those below the age of 16,
>> everybody is extremely cautious, because nobody knows what is,
>> actually, going on?
>>
>>> And please take the following to heart. Without prior exposure to the
>>> coronavirus,
>>> you are unlikely to have any antibodies that protect you from it, and
>>> your immune
>>> system has no memory that a prior exposure gives of what kinds of
>>> antibodies
>>> to crank out.
>>>
>>> And so, it has to figure out by trial and error when the virus
>>> invades. And while
>>> it is figuring it out, the virus multiplies fast enough to be in a
>>> good position
>>> to overwhelm your system before enough antibodies can be produced.
>>
>>          Hm, strangely, young people have everything that is
>> necessary, for them this is only a mild thing.
>
> Not any more.

Yes, virus evolved, it was mild, now it is stronger. Scientists are
just as stupid today as they were two years ago. Why? Because two years
ago they knew everything, so there's nothing else new to learn, lol.

>>>> 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?
>>          And this is the problem with vaccination. Our immune system
>> fights diseases guided by a vaccine. This makes him less fit. Because
>> we all will be less fit, we all will die if we continue to use
>> vaccination. This Covid-19 thing is just the first glimpse of the
>> shape of things to come. It'll be worse and worse, this is just the
>> first glimpse.
>
> You haven't explained how vaccines make you less fit.

Oh, I told you that it makes me less fit. This is good enough for me.
How? Well, if you don't need to know, don't make an effort to figure it
out. Aren't you convinced that everything is just fine? Well, then it
doesn't matter "how".

>>>> I mean, there is a reason for it. It is hard to prove the reason.
>>>
>>> Yes, "They say" just doesn't cut it.
>
> Peter is asking you to support your claim. You ignored him. Why?

I didn't understand this, and I am still not understanding this. It is
a linguistical/cultural problem, I don't get it, the form of it. I don't
get what he wants.
I mean, for the end, lets have a reality check. People don't know
everything (they are not gods). They will never know everything.
Regarding defense system and vaccination, they are just learning. You
are learning by the way of experimentation. Well, defense system is the
only thing that keeps us alive. This isn't a thing with which you will
do experimentation. Do you realize what will happen if this
experimentation goes wrong? Covid-19 crisis is showing that this
experiment is gone wrong, but nobody even sees that, and let alone is
willing to admit that.

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

[John Harshman]

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. That's why vaccines are effective.

> 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?

> [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 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.
> 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.

>> 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. 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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

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. The title says what's in article.
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? If the article says that it doesn't
damage body, well, I agree with this.

>> 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.). This was what experts found out
at the very beginning of the outbreak.

> 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.
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,
so, I was suspicious for a long time, I also knew that humans are not
smart, since I am living on Balkans, in Croatia). So, in general,
governments rely on science, science is rotten, so where does this leads
us to? It was so good, for so long time, in the developed world, and now
the developed world experiment too much, thinking nothing can go wrong.
There is nothing worse than thinking that you are a god, that you know
"the right way". First, you don't know a sh.t, and second, "the right
way" changes, according to circumstances. You have to be smart at every
point of your way, and not just to step accidentally onto the right
track, thinking that you are a god, and follow in the same direction, no
matter if the track turns away.

>> 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.

By my example I am giving my support to people who will have
descendants, and who will not vaccinate.

>> 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."
>
> [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen that fights viruses"?]
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Yes, I agree. And all this is very interesting discussion, on which I
have nothing to add. If you have questions, please ask.
Regarding the topic of vaccination, I believe I said a lot in my reply
to Harshman. If you have any objections, again, please ask.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

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?

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.

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.

> That's why vaccines are effective.

I'm surprised to see you use such simplistic logic; it confuses necessary and sufficient conditions.

> > 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?


> > [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?

> 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.

> > 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.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

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.]

>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?

> 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.

> 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?

> >> 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. "

>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?

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.

> > 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.

> 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.

> so, I was suspicious for a long time, I also knew that humans are not
> smart, since I am living on Balkans, in Croatia). So, in general,
> governments rely on science, science is rotten, so where does this leads
> us to? It was so good, for so long time, in the developed world, and now
> the developed world experiment too much, thinking nothing can go wrong.
> There is nothing worse than thinking that you are a god, that you know
> "the right way".

Then why are you so sure of so many things that aren't correct?

> First, you don't know a sh.t, and second, "the right
> way" changes, according to circumstances. You have to be smart at every
> point of your way, and not just to step accidentally onto the right
> track, thinking that you are a god, and follow in the same direction, no
> matter if the track turns away.
> >> 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.

> By my example I am giving my support to people who will have
> descendants, and who will not vaccinate.

And who may suffer the tragedies that you would know about, if you
had read the article I linked for you. Do you like the idea of their children
spitting on your grave if they suffer them, say, thirty years from now,
when they are as old as you and the children are in the prime of adulthood?

> >> 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.

If what I said about children spitting on your grave comes to pass, this
might rouse them to more extreme actions, were they to see this.

Are you familiar with Dickens's "A Christmas Carol"? Ebenezer Scrooge said something
along the same lines, but he came to be remorseful when his heart went out to Tiny Tim,
and the Ghost of Christmas Present brought his words back to haunt him.

> > >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."
> >
> > [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen that fights viruses"?]
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.

> Yes, I agree. And all this is very interesting discussion, on which I
> have nothing to add. If you have questions, please ask.
> Regarding the topic of vaccination, I believe I said a lot in my reply
> to Harshman.

A lot, but I think about 75% of what you need to say still hasn't been said.

> If you have any objections, again, please ask.

I sure will, as you can see from my last reply to Harshman, less than an hour ago.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

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.

Ha, ha, nothing like that. I followed space research closely, believed
in it, and believed in science. And them comes some spacecraft to
Jupiter, and all the scientists are surprised with what they found, many
of them talking how the things that they found there were nothing like
what they were expecting.

>> so, I was suspicious for a long time, I also knew that humans are not
>> smart, since I am living on Balkans, in Croatia). So, in general,
>> governments rely on science, science is rotten, so where does this leads
>> us to? It was so good, for so long time, in the developed world, and now
>> the developed world experiment too much, thinking nothing can go wrong.
>> There is nothing worse than thinking that you are a god, that you know
>> "the right way".
>
> Then why are you so sure of so many things that aren't correct?

Because I know that those particular things aren't correct. But, to
preach some particular pathway, well, for that you have to be God,
himself. To know that a particular pathway is the best, I have to know
*everything*, every tiny bit.

>> First, you don't know a sh.t, and second, "the right
>> way" changes, according to circumstances. You have to be smart at every
>> point of your way, and not just to step accidentally onto the right
>> track, thinking that you are a god, and follow in the same direction, no
>> matter if the track turns away.
>>>> 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.
>
>> By my example I am giving my support to people who will have
>> descendants, and who will not vaccinate.
>
> And who may suffer the tragedies that you would know about, if you
> had read the article I linked for you. Do you like the idea of their children
> spitting on your grave if they suffer them, say, thirty years from now,
> when they are as old as you and the children are in the prime of adulthood?

I don't bloody care what them, or anybody else, would do. I am
spreading my knowledge, and I am living according to it. You may listen
to what I am talking about, or you may not. I've seen too many idiots
around me, in my life, to care about what some idiot will, or will not do.

>>>> 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.
>
> If what I said about children spitting on your grave comes to pass, this
> might rouse them to more extreme actions, were they to see this.
>
> Are you familiar with Dickens's "A Christmas Carol"? Ebenezer Scrooge said something
> along the same lines, but he came to be remorseful when his heart went out to Tiny Tim,
> and the Ghost of Christmas Present brought his words back to haunt him.

I don't get this whole part. I didn't read literature when I was in
school, and I am not familiar with this story.
I am interested in what you mean by "taking extreme actions". In my
view, they can take whichever actions they like, but I am interested in
what you meant, never-the-less.

>>>> 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."
>>>
>>> [By the way, was this pseudoscience the inspiration for "Supermen that fights viruses"?]
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>> Yes, I agree. And all this is very interesting discussion, on which I
>> have nothing to add. If you have questions, please ask.
>> Regarding the topic of vaccination, I believe I said a lot in my reply
>> to Harshman.
>
> A lot, but I think about 75% of what you need to say still hasn't been said.

Yes, definitely. But, I assume that I can never say it all. I am just
responding, the best way I can.

>> If you have any objections, again, please ask.
>
> I sure will, as you can see from my last reply to Harshman, less than an hour ago.

And, thank you for that, :) .

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

[Peter Nyikos]

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

[John Harshman]

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.

[Oxyaena]

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.

[*Hemidactylus*]

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.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <peter2...@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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

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-e...@googlegroups.com

[John Harshman]

Holy shit! He's a Nazi??

[Mario Petrinovic]

It is Jews who should apologize to others, for everything they did to
others in the past.
Regarding Nazi, isn't the definition of Nazism that Germans are better
than the rest? 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, and against communists. I
am against *anybody* who wants to harm the majority.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

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.

[Peter Nyikos]

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

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-e...@googlegroups.com

[Peter Nyikos]

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

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?

Yes, but I cannot accept this. I cannot call myself anti-Semite,
because I am not. Usually I have nothing against established terms, but
this one is plainly wrong.

>> 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.

It doesn't matter if they are individuals, or organized individuals.
Psychopaths are doing harm (by definition), societies should get rid of
them.
You are imposing a lot onto me how I have to do this, or how I have to
do that. No, I don't have to do anything. And, after all, this
particular decision isn't on me, it is on majority. I can disagree with
what the majority does. I am talking about, that majority has *the
right* to do whatever it wants.

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

[Peter Nyikos]

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.

> >>>> 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?

It's hopelessly vague. You don't explain any of your statements.

> >>>> 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.

But you can't put it into words?

> >>>> 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.

You don't explain enough for me to figure out what the right word might be.


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.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

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.

Of course the majority can be wrong. And, what will you do? Kill the
majority? The majority has the right to be wrong.

>> 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.

I am talking about who has the right. If people have equal rights,
then the majority has the right to decide. You seem to have stance that
some people are more worthy than the others. Because they are "smarter",
or because they have some religious believes. In my eyes, everybody has
equal rights. If rights clash, then the majority has the right to
decide. This is called "democracy".

>> 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?

Yes, you. See above. You are imposing your ideas onto others. It
doesn't matter what is the idea, the majority has the right to push its
agenda, not you (because your ideas are "better", or whatever).

>>>>>> "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.

Well, its the reality of life, and, for sure, this isn't the only
"sad" thing in my life. I am living among this majority, I cannot live
alone.
But, you are penduluming the wight onto the "benefit" side. The
majority shouldn't care if I am not benefiting to it. But, for sure it
should care if I am doing harm to it. If they are smart.

>>>>>> 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.

That's alright. Germans were hostile enough. That's also alright.

>>>>>> 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?
>
> It's hopelessly vague. You don't explain any of your statements.

But, I don't have to. This is my opinion, I got it somehow, you don't
respect it, its alright. You don't get opinions by reading comic books
for kids, you get opinions by your life experience.
Hitler got to power when Germany was in crisis. Germans accused Jews
for a big part in that crisis, and they were not too far off from the truth.
I mean, the Axis countries (Germany, Italy, Japan) were the most
progressive countries of that time. I don't like dictatorships, but I
cannot go around the truth, nor I would blindfold myself. Later, Japan
and Germany destroyed the car industry in USA. For various reasons, but
that's also the fact.

>>>>>> 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.
>
> But you can't put it into words?
>
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> You don't explain enough for me to figure out what the right word might be.

I just asked for what parasites are doing to their hosts. You should
know the English word, since we are in biology news group.

> 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.

Oh, as soon as somebody says anything against Jews, they just shut
down and turn away. They are on that level. They are trained to behave
like that, lol.
Also, you will notice that Jews never discuss themselves. They will
also take offense (if this is the right word), turn around and go. They
know that they will lose in a discussion, so that way they make the
opponent a loser, lol.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

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-e...@googlegroups.com

[*Hemidactylus*]

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?

[erik simpson]

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.

[Peter Nyikos]

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

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-e...@googlegroups.com

[Peter Nyikos]

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.

[Peter Nyikos]

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

[John Harshman]

What makes you sick, presumably, is all the virus replicating and lysing
your cells to get out. Certainly not the spike protein.

[Oxyaena]

I have to agree that the Holocaust receives a bit too much attention
compared to other genocides and atrocities, like the Native American
Holocaust, or the Naqba when the Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine
of almost all of its indigenous people.

>
>
>> 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.

The reason Jewish people have the stereotype of being good at investing
is because back in the day, they were barred from most other
professions. The only way for a Jew to feed themselves and their family
was often banking, so that's what they did.

>
>
>> 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.

You think the riches of landlords were justly gained? Landlords are
social parasites profiting off of the need of people to have shelter.
There is nothing "just" about the relationship between a landlord and a
tenant, anymore than there is between a feudal lord and a serf. The
power imbalance is just too great. Sure you can say the tenant has a
"choice," but it's not really a choice when your options are to either
rent or suffer homelessness.

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

Yes. One does not make a billion dollars ethically. You know how many
years it'd take to make a billion dollars doing honest work? Two million
years. Does that sound like a single human lifetime to you? The reason
Bill Gates is so wealthy is because he benefits from a system that is
overwhelmingly built in place to prop up people like Gates. Social
mobility is a farce under capitalism. Poverty is not a fluke of the
system, it's a feature.

Like abolishing capitalism. Capitalism is the reason we are facing the
current crises we have. You don't fix a problem by using the very same
thing that made that problem in the first place.

>
>
>> 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.

Yeah fuck off, talk.origins has nothing to do with this thread.

America is a big part of the reason why the former Yugoslavia and
Afghanistan are in such poor straits nowadays, which you'd know if you
bothered to read up on the social sciences.

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

My girlfriend's Jewish. I don't know why you're tolerating discussion
with a fucking Nazi.

>
>
>
> 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.
>

Go fuck yourself, Peter.

>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Oxyaena]

On 9/9/2021 4:24 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip idiocy]

>
> Difficult though it is for you and Harshman and Hemidactylus and Oxyaena to understand,

Pot kettle black.

> 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.

Yeah because you're a homophobe and you support Hungary's repression of
LGBT+ folk. That's why you don't want to go into detail about it.

[snip idiocy]

>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[erik simpson]

If I offended, I beg your pardon. My understanding of you is of a man of some native intelligence
who didn't get a very good education. As a result, you trust your personal experience and intuition
over the advice of "experts" or "leaders" who proved frequently wrong. If my experience had been the
same, I'd probably hold a similar postion to yours. But I'm lucky enough to have had a good education, so
I have higher regard for the expertise of those who aren't usually wrong. (By "wrecking beg" I assume you meant
"punching bag"?) If so, I've no intention of punching you or anyone else. At my age, I couldn't do much damage
anyway. I hope you come to recognize that there is reliable knowledge that comes from outside your own
experience. Good luck.

[Peter Nyikos]

Lest there be any misunderstanding: I'm glad I saw "Schindler's List,"
because it brought home to me the utter inhumanity of the Nazi extermination
campaign like nothing I saw before -- including the ghastly scenes of
actual footage in "Judgment at Nuremberg."

> I have to agree that the Holocaust receives a bit too much attention
> compared to other genocides and atrocities, like the Native American
> Holocaust, or the Naqba when the Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine
> of almost all of its indigenous people.

Interesting how you compare the cold blooded murder of millions of Jews with
the displacement of peoples. Can you point me to a webpage where
it is explained how the partition of Palestine and the resulting displacements
are different in their nature from the partition that created India and Pakistan,
resulting in the displacement of millions of Hindus living in what became Pakistan
and millions of Muslims living in what became India?

That said, I am appalled by the genocides and atrocities by White Anglos against
Native Americans. I cannot understand why there isn't a major hue
and cry against Andrew Jackson, responsible for the deaths of thousands of
Cherokee, including untold numbers of women and children, by
starvation and exposure to cold during the Trail of Tears, being
commemorated by his portrait on the $20 bill.

Mario might not know it, but nowadays automatic teller machines in the USA
almost exclusively give you one denomination: $20 bills.

> >
> >
> >> 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.

> The reason Jewish people have the stereotype of being good at investing
> is because back in the day, they were barred from most other
> professions. The only way for a Jew to feed themselves and their family
> was often banking, so that's what they did.

Quite true. Did you think of making this comment in direct reply to Mario?

> >
> >> 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.

> You think the riches of landlords were justly gained? Landlords are
> social parasites profiting off of the need of people to have shelter.

That's quite an indictment of renting houses and apartments
to people who cannot get a loan to buy a house for themselves.

Are you a Marxist, or just a generalized leftist? Do you agree
with the words of the Communist Manifesto, "Private property is theft."?

Strangely enough, I agree with it under limited circumstances.
I include, for example, the ownership of property on the shores
of lakes dozens of square miles in area with prime boating and fishing possibilities,
to the point where the general public has access to less than 5% of the shoreline,
the rest being exclusive private properties.


I'm short on time, and besides, I'm curious to see whether Harshman or Simpson
or Hemidactylus will respond to this post of yours, so I'm stopping here, less than halfway
through your post.

Simpson bypassed it over an hour after you did it, and responded
to Mario instead, so it'll be especially interesting to see whether he, in particular,
responds to it in the next day or two.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Thanks. Strangely enough, I never read about that lysing feature. Somehow I imagined
the viruses exiting the way the spike proteins molecules produced by mRNA vaccines exit one at a time,
to where they can be detected by the immune system, and without their exits causing
major damage to the cells.


Peter Nyikos

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 9.9.2021. 21:54, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> 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 said that I don't know what about this Djilas is writing, and I also
explained that Bill Gates' imbalances aren't on expense of the others.
Bill Gates doesn't do harm to community, it enriches it.

>>>> 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?

I am almost absolutely sure that Bill Gates works in accordance to USA
government, and in the interest of American people. If it wouldn't be
so, be sure that American government would deal with him a long time
ago. They are not stupid, and they are not Bill Gates' cousins, to allow
him to do whatever he wants.
I am absolutely sure that the net balance of what Bill Gates is doing
is positive for America. Probably all of them, Putin, Kim Jong-un, Xi
Jinping, Miguel Diaz-Canel (Cuba) and Nicolas Maduro have Windows on
their desktops. Discussing such a delicate matters in this context is
senseless.

>> 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.

The thing with Microsoft is, if Microsoft wouldn't have monopoly in
the USA, it wouldn't have monopoly on the world. It is *very* beneficial
for America that Microsoft (or any other American company, it really
doesn't matter which one) has monopoly on the world, it is so obvious.
If Microsoft is your only argument, then you don't have an argument.

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

> If I offended, I beg your pardon. My understanding of you is of a man of some native intelligence
> who didn't get a very good education. As a result, you trust your personal experience and intuition
> over the advice of "experts" or "leaders" who proved frequently wrong. If my experience had been the
> same, I'd probably hold a similar postion to yours. But I'm lucky enough to have had a good education, so
> I have higher regard for the expertise of those who aren't usually wrong. (By "wrecking beg" I assume you meant
> "punching bag"?) If so, I've no intention of punching you or anyone else. At my age, I couldn't do much damage
> anyway. I hope you come to recognize that there is reliable knowledge that comes from outside your own
> experience. Good luck.

Thanks for the nice reply.
Yes, punching bag.
Your view of me is accurate.
But, it wasn't what you wrote. You started that I am unpleasant, and
not worthy anybody's time. Then you continued about bigoted garbage from
eastern Europe. And then it turned out that it isn't only at that low
level, but suddenly it is also from western Europe. Then it turned out
that it is actually the whole world.
So, you started with something like, he is bubbling some strange sh.t,
and ended up that actually it is strange not to bubble this same sh.t,
because the whole world is doing it (everybody except you, actually).
So, now what? Am I worthless (because I am not important), or is your
denying of what the whole world is doing, actually, worthless?

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

[erik simpson]

Everybody, including myself, picks up garbage that's lying around, just because it's around,
and at least at first, we don't realize it. We all, you, me, Nyikos, etc. have what I believe is a
moral responsibility to try to do better. My grandmother lived with my immediate family when
I was a kid, and she was a wonderful person burdened with some characteristic American bigotry
of the late 19th century. It wasn't easy for her to get rid of those prejudices (she never completely did)
but she made a strong effort. I can only hope to do as well. Worthlessness is failing to make the effort.
The whole world is (I think) getting better, agonizingly slowly, with serious setbacks.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I heard about this fairy tale, but I don't believe it. Like somebody
would deny me to be poor, and force me to be rich. Jesus Christ, I
cannot believe this, no way.
This world is revolving around money for the last 2,600 years. And you
are saying that somebody forced Jews to deal only with money, to control
the bloodstream of society, and they mustn't do anything else.
Well, I heard hundreds of communist fairy tales in my lifetime, and
this one sounds just like one of those.

>>> 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.
>
> You think the riches of landlords were justly gained? Landlords are
> social parasites profiting off of the need of people to have shelter.
> There is nothing "just" about the relationship between a landlord and a
> tenant, anymore than there is between a feudal lord and a serf. The
> power imbalance is just too great. Sure you can say the tenant has a
> "choice," but it's not really a choice when your options are to either
> rent or suffer homelessness.

I believe that this is a product of capitalism, that it is made in
accordance to the needs of society, and that capitalism is the best system.

>> Do you think Bill Gates deserves to be lynched just because he is so much
>> more wealthy than almost everyone on earth?
>
> Yes. One does not make a billion dollars ethically. You know how many
> years it'd take to make a billion dollars doing honest work? Two million
> years. Does that sound like a single human lifetime to you? The reason
> Bill Gates is so wealthy is because he benefits from a system that is
> overwhelmingly built in place to prop up people like Gates. Social
> mobility is a farce under capitalism. Poverty is not a fluke of the
> system, it's a feature.

Well, it looks like you cannot have one without the other. As far as I
know, the poverty line is if you give more than 25 % of your income on
food. The average for Croatia (for all the people) is 27 %. Croats are
convinced that there is no poverty in Croatia (and they will talk and
explain this to you for hours, poor you, who lives in USA which is full
with poverty), and that there is a lot of poverty in the USA. Idiots.
And you will listen to this idiots, and you will find "first hand" that
Croatia is a Paradise, especially compared to the USA. Mind you, those
are all poor people, who never had enough money to pay themselves a trip
abroad, to see for themselves how the other people are living.
For example, in Yugoslavia we had free higher education (isn't it a
Paradise?). It is very expensive in the USA. Yet, Yugoslavia had only 7
% of people to go to colleges, while USA has 28 %, four times more.

Lol, you really don't know anything. America invested a lot of money
into Yugoslavia. The same goes for Afghanistan. With the best
intentions. It is the others that have very bad intentions.

>> But the point is, here in America most people aren't hostile enough
>> towards Jews
>> to say the sorts of things you say below.
>
> My girlfriend's Jewish. I don't know why you're tolerating discussion
> with a fucking Nazi.

I would never be so partial. Because your friend is a Jew, you don't
take anything against Jews. Hm, what if Jews made some foul play? You
don't care, because your friend is a Jew.
Hm, this is a scientific forum, not forum for housewives.

>> 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.
>>
>
> Go fuck yourself, Peter.

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

[John Harshman]

Turns out that SARS-Cov-2 doesn't generally lyse cells. Instead it
coopts the lysosome to exit. And it appears that nobody actually knows
for sure how the virus damages the body. Still, it isn't the spike
protein that does it.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I am telling you people, but you refuse to listen. Everything was
known since the beginning, but nobody talks about this anymore. It isn't
the virus, what is killing us is the harsh reaction of our immune system
to that virus. Our immune system is killing us, because it doesn't work
as advertised, anymore.

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

[Glenn]

One opinion;

'SARS-CoV-2 grows in type II lung cells, which secrete a soap-like substance that helps air slip deep into the lungs, and in cells lining the throat. As with SARS, most of the damage in COVID-19, the illness caused by the new coronavirus, is caused by the immune system carrying out a scorched earth defense to stop the virus from spreading. Millions of cells from the immune system invade the infected lung tissue and cause massive amounts of damage in the process of cleaning out the virus and any infected cells."

https://theconversation.com/what-the-coronavirus-does-to-your-body-that-makes-it-so-deadly-133856

Don't count on Eric or John to really know anything.

And this is way off topic for this froup. funny that no one seems to mind.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Exactly, lol. Count on Mario Petrinovic.
Thanks Glenn, :) .

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

[Mario Petrinovic]

It is the interpretation thing. Some people interpret everything
wrongly. Even if they have some knowledge, they interpret it wrongly.
For the reason I cannot grasp, lol.

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

[Glenn]

More directly to your question of why some people get deathly sick and others not, there may be one reason for some people:

"In other words, the cigarette smoke extract and these two drugs—all of which act as activators of AHR—are able to suppress the expression of ACE2 in mammalian cells, and by doing so, reduce the ability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter the cell."

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-drugs-mimic-effects-cigarette-sars-cov-.html

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm a tad surprised. I try to keep up with The Conversation when it's about a number of topics of
first rate importance, but I think I missed this one.

Ironically, it looks like this is one of the few places where the anti-vaxxers have more on the ball than
the ones who cancel them in social media. They've been harping on this reaction as evidence
that the virus itself is harmless and it is only the body attacking itself that is the real cause of Covid-19.

> Don't count on Eric or John to really know anything.

Right, they are more interested in government imposed mandates than in science.
Biden's hot-off-the-presses plan to "deputize" any employer with 100 or more employees to
make them "take the jab" is sure to be near and dear their hearts, especially the fact that,
unlike regular "deputizing," which is voluntary, this one would be like the draft.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/will-joe-biden-e2-80-99s-vaccine-mandate-for-large-companies-have-legal-ramifications/ar-AAOj3Mm?ocid=uxbndlbing

You know, draft, the thing that elicited draft card burning and "Hell, no, we won't go" in the 60's
from the likes of them. But their kind of politics is the kind that goes without a hitch from
"Four legs good, two legs bad!" to "Four legs good, two legs *better*!"

[Technical detail: employees can opt out if they test every week, as long as they
test negative every time. But most employees will not want to take that risk.]

> And this is way off topic for this froup. funny that no one seems to mind.

I don't mind, but for a surprising reason: I know that a lot of what we've written on why the mRNA
vaccines are safe IS relevant to a lot of paleontology.

I don't think that's the reason anyone else doesn't mind. It takes someone with
my peculiar qualities to see a connection.

1. I am good at thinking outside the box. Except perhaps for Mario, the regulars
besides me demonstrate all kinds of stereotyped thinking. Harshman, for instance,
has the impressive specialized knowledge and skills of an idiot savant when it
comes to certain aspects of systematics and ornithology, but even there,
he is not good at making connections between disparate parts of his expertise.
Once those "savant" skills no longer avail him, he is a lot like the "idiot" half of "idiot savant".

2. I take the scientific side of the anti-vaxxer challenge seriously. The others [here, I think
Mario doesn't care] have a strong authoritarian streak that manifests itself in political activism.
See my comments about the Biden would-be mandate.

It's even worse with some of their allies in talk.origins. I was denounced as being
responsible for untold numbers of deaths by daring to ASK A QUESTION about the
very thing where I found the connection that I will be introducing next Monday.
The person who did it was welcomed to talk.origins by Harshman as having "true grit"
in return for doing an unprovoked, unsupported personal attack against me.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Spoiler: the title of the thread, slated for next Monday, will be:

"Ancient bornaviruses and modern vaccines."

The "Ancient" gives the paleontological connection. Although viruses are not known to fossilize,
their effects go back millions of years on mammals and other vertebrates.

[Glenn]

This may interest you:

"A Large Number of Protein Folds Shared Exclusively between Viruses and Their Host Genomes Were Likely Transferred from Viruses to Cells"

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02110/full

[erik simpson]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> Ironically, it looks like this is one of the few places where the anti-vaxxers have more on the ball than
> the ones who cancel them in social media. They've been harping on this reaction as evidence
> that the virus itself is harmless and it is only the body attacking itself that is the real cause of Covid-19.
> > Don't count on Eric or John to really know anything.
> Right, they are more interested in government imposed mandates than in science.
> Biden's hot-off-the-presses plan to "deputize" any employer with 100 or more employees to
> make them "take the jab" is sure to be near and dear their hearts, especially the fact that,
> unlike regular "deputizing," which is voluntary, this one would be like the draft.
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/will-joe-biden-e2-80-99s-vaccine-mandate-for-large-companies-have-legal-ramifications/ar-AAOj3Mm?ocid=uxbndlbing
>
> You know, draft, the thing that elicited draft card burning and "Hell, no, we won't go" in the 60's
> from the likes of them. But their kind of politics is the kind that goes without a hitch from
> "Four legs good, two legs bad!" to "Four legs good, two legs *better*!"
>

Just for the record, Peter, you would be hard-put to be more wrong about my political positions. Actually,
you have no evidence of them, as I've been careful not to introduce them. Nor will I expound on them now.
Along with your insight into others' "real meanings", you are batting near zero here.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> >
> > Ironically, it looks like this is one of the few places where the anti-vaxxers have more on the ball than
> > the ones who cancel them in social media. They've been harping on this reaction as evidence
> > that the virus itself is harmless and it is only the body attacking itself that is the real cause of Covid-19.
> > > Don't count on Eric or John to really know anything.
> > Right, they are more interested in government imposed mandates than in science.
> > Biden's hot-off-the-presses plan to "deputize" any employer with 100 or more employees to
> > make them "take the jab" is sure to be near and dear their hearts, especially the fact that,
> > unlike regular "deputizing," which is voluntary, this one would be like the draft.
> >
> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/will-joe-biden-e2-80-99s-vaccine-mandate-for-large-companies-have-legal-ramifications/ar-AAOj3Mm?ocid=uxbndlbing
> >
> > You know, draft, the thing that elicited draft card burning and "Hell, no, we won't go" in the 60's
> > from the likes of them. But their kind of politics is the kind that goes without a hitch from
> > "Four legs good, two legs bad!" to "Four legs good, two legs *better*!"
> >
> Just for the record, Peter, you would be hard-put to be more wrong about my political positions.

Since I didn't say anything about them specifically, but only used one illustrative example
about "the likes of them" [which does not mean "them, personally], you are building a castle in the air.

> you have no evidence of them, as I've been careful not to introduce them. Nor will I expound on them now.

Irrelevant. The only issue is whether your views on SOME political matters change markedly,
particularly in reaction to shifts in the prevailing winds. There have been many
in the last two decades, you know, as long as you realize that changes in prevailing values
are very much part of political change.

If it's anything like your flip-flops here, it's a no-brainer. For three years now, you've been going from
"Peter is boring, I hardly pay any attention to him any more" and "I'm done with this thread"
to showing how magically your "boredom" disappears when you think you can get the upper
hand on me, and how you often return to a thread soon after claiming you are done with it.
On "Vaccinations," you already "went back on your word" in less than a day after supposedly being done.

> Along with your insight into others' "real meanings", you are batting near zero here

You are too cagey to even hint at what you are referring to here, so the last clause is just hot air.


Peter Nyios

[Oxyaena]

Interesting how you whitewash the cold-blooded 75+ year long oppression
of the Palestinian people as "mere ethnic displacement." You've always
been a piece of shit, Peter, but this is a new low even for you.

> Can you point me to a webpage where
> it is explained how the partition of Palestine and the resulting displacements
> are different in their nature from the partition that created India and Pakistan,
> resulting in the displacement of millions of Hindus living in what became Pakistan
> and millions of Muslims living in what became India?

Does that make it any better? Palestinians are to this day oppressed by
the Apartheid regime in Israel, or have you shoved your head so far up
your own ass that Apartheid in any form is a "good thing" that we should
strive for? Both the partitions of the Indian subcontinent and Palestine
are the results of British imperialism, so they share common ground in
that front.

>
> That said, I am appalled by the genocides and atrocities by White Anglos against
> Native Americans. I cannot understand why there isn't a major hue
> and cry against Andrew Jackson, responsible for the deaths of thousands of
> Cherokee, including untold numbers of women and children, by
> starvation and exposure to cold during the Trail of Tears, being
> commemorated by his portrait on the $20 bill.

I have to agree with you there.

>
> Mario might not know it, but nowadays automatic teller machines in the USA
> almost exclusively give you one denomination: $20 bills.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>> The reason Jewish people have the stereotype of being good at investing
>> is because back in the day, they were barred from most other
>> professions. The only way for a Jew to feed themselves and their family
>> was often banking, so that's what they did.
>
> Quite true. Did you think of making this comment in direct reply to Mario?

I was adding context to something you ignored and failed to cover upon.

>
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>> You think the riches of landlords were justly gained? Landlords are
>> social parasites profiting off of the need of people to have shelter.
>
> That's quite an indictment of renting houses and apartments
> to people who cannot get a loan to buy a house for themselves.

As someone who's been the victim of parasitic landlords in the past,
yes, it is quite the indictment, one I'll stand by until the day I die.

>
> Are you a Marxist, or just a generalized leftist? Do you agree
> with the words of the Communist Manifesto, "Private property is theft."?

I'm an anarchist, and I believe Proudhon put it better: "Property is
robbery." I believe in a usufructuary conception of property: occupation
and usage. If you ain't living on it and using that land, it's not
yours. That would eliminate the problem of parasitic absentee
landlordism outright.

>
> Strangely enough, I agree with it under limited circumstances.
> I include, for example, the ownership of property on the shores
> of lakes dozens of square miles in area with prime boating and fishing possibilities,
> to the point where the general public has access to less than 5% of the shoreline,
> the rest being exclusive private properties.

All property has been either seized at gunpoint from the indigenous or
parceled out of the commons via fiat. The very history of private
property is one of theft and robbery.

[snip irreleventia]

[Oxyaena]

On 9/10/2021 8:14 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ironically, it looks like this is one of the few places where the anti-vaxxers have more on the ball than
>>> the ones who cancel them in social media. They've been harping on this reaction as evidence
>>> that the virus itself is harmless and it is only the body attacking itself that is the real cause of Covid-19.
>>>> Don't count on Eric or John to really know anything.
>>> Right, they are more interested in government imposed mandates than in science.
>>> Biden's hot-off-the-presses plan to "deputize" any employer with 100 or more employees to
>>> make them "take the jab" is sure to be near and dear their hearts, especially the fact that,
>>> unlike regular "deputizing," which is voluntary, this one would be like the draft.
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/will-joe-biden-e2-80-99s-vaccine-mandate-for-large-companies-have-legal-ramifications/ar-AAOj3Mm?ocid=uxbndlbing
>>>
>>> You know, draft, the thing that elicited draft card burning and "Hell, no, we won't go" in the 60's
>>> from the likes of them. But their kind of politics is the kind that goes without a hitch from
>>> "Four legs good, two legs bad!" to "Four legs good, two legs *better*!"
>>>
>> Just for the record, Peter, you would be hard-put to be more wrong about my political positions.
>
> Since I didn't say anything about them specifically, but only used one illustrative example
> about "the likes of them" [which does not mean "them, personally], you are building a castle in the air.

Then why did you say "the likes of them" and why did you use that
specific example? We all know you're a stickler for the fascist right,
or at the very least an enabler of it. There's no need to pretend otherwise.

>
>
>> you have no evidence of them, as I've been careful not to introduce them. Nor will I expound on them now.
>
> Irrelevant.

Wrong. It is very relevant. You specifically cited Simpson as an example
of "the likes of them," and then proceeded to expound upon Simpson's
implicit political positions.

[snip idiocy[

[Glenn]

The piece of shit here is the one that added "mere".

[erik simpson]

Fret not. It's just Peter.

[Glenn]

So you are more interested in "the science" of COVID than in getting everyone vaccinated. Good to know.