Of internet balls and beer balls
During my drinking days (daze) it was observed that the more one had to drink (to a point) the more courage one would get- no inhibitions.
Now it seems the same is true of the internet. People who use the inetrnet get courage from the fact that they are hiding in front of some computer monitor.
IOW they say and do things that they would never say or do in someone's company. They are gutless wonders with internet balls.
Myself, on the other hand, would love the opportunity to tell people to their faces exactly what I tell them on the internet. And I would also love for them to do the same to me.
That way we could see natural selection in action!
I love a good science experiment. Any takers?
Now it seems the same is true of the internet. People who use the inetrnet get courage from the fact that they are hiding in front of some computer monitor.
IOW they say and do things that they would never say or do in someone's company. They are gutless wonders with internet balls.
Myself, on the other hand, would love the opportunity to tell people to their faces exactly what I tell them on the internet. And I would also love for them to do the same to me.
That way we could see natural selection in action!
I love a good science experiment. Any takers?
posted by Joe G @ 10:18 AM
61 Comments:
At 11:59 AM,
blipey said…
Oh yeah! You're already on my list, Mr. "I've embarrassed too many scientists to remember".
I've told you I'm visiting and I'll be expecting the list of scientists you once promised.
I really expect my visit will turn out much like my visit to DaveScot.
You know, the one where I turned up in Austin because he invited me. But then he got all scared, threatened to have his pussy cats eat me, and wouldn't return emails or phone calls even though he gave me both?
Don't ask for wht you can't handle.
At 12:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Erik sez:
Don't ask for wht you can't handle.
I never do.
C-ya soon...
At 3:41 PM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
Oh yeah! You're already on my list, Mr. "I've embarrassed too many scientists to remember".
Hell, if I was a scientist, I'd be embarrassed to talk to Joe too! Just think of all those useful brain cells going to waste trying to pick through all of his logical fallacies, not to mention his dreadful command of the English language.
At 7:23 PM,
Forthekids said…
I think I'd rather dine with the hounds of hell that have to sit through a dinner with Blipey.
[shudders...]
At 7:37 PM,
Forthekids said…
Hmmm...so Blipey's real name is Erik. Guess you learn something new everyday.
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes blipey's real name is Erik- Erik Pratt.
And there won't be any dinner with Erik...
To Dazza:
Perhaps you could present one or a few of those alleged logical fallacies or just admit that you are a lying loser.
Thanks.
At 8:26 AM,
Dazza McTrazza said…
For the logical fallacies feel free to look at the below thread - nice of you to ignore my previous comment about your obvious contradictions.
I'm a lying loser - did that give you goosepimples big boy?
At 8:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Dazza:
For the logical fallacies feel free to look at the below thread - nice of you to ignore my previous comment about your obvious contradictions.
I looked and didn't see any logical fallacies.
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific. Doubtful but it would help your cause.
Also what comment did I ignore- again please be specific.
Dazza:
I'm a lying loser
Yes you are
At 1:10 PM,
blipey said…
Okay, Joe. It's not that people don't point out your errors. It's that you don't choose to engage the topic of those errors. For example:
And again you use of an alleged paternal family tree is misleading and therefore deceptive. It is misleading because the guy at the top of your alleged tree really isn’t at the top. He is just another node in another subset. And therefore your use of it as an example of nested hierarchy is also wrong.
This is just wrong. And your claim that this doesn't reduce to "claiming a paternal family tree isn't a nested hierarchy because sons have fathers" is also just plain wrong.
At 1:11 PM,
blipey said…
Ftk: I think I'd rather dine with the hounds of hell that have to sit through a dinner with Blipey.
No hounds have to sit with me during dinner.
At 1:13 PM,
blipey said…
Ftk: Hmmm...so Blipey's real name is Erik. Guess you learn something new everyday.
This is telling. It takes, what Joe? About 3 seconds to click a link and come up with my name. Two links at most, Ftk. Not hard to do.
Oh, you should like this place, Ftk, right up your alley. Take a look at the people on your side.
At 2:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Erik:
Okay, Joe. It's not that people don't point out your errors.
And most often than not the error is all theirs. So far anyway.
Erik:
For example:
And again you use of an alleged paternal family tree is misleading and therefore deceptive. It is misleading because the guy at the top of your alleged tree really isn’t at the top. He is just another node in another subset. And therefore your use of it as an example of nested hierarchy is also wrong.
This is just wrong.
How is it wrong?
IOW it is not enough to just make a bald assertion.
Erik:
And your claim that this doesn't reduce to "claiming a paternal family tree isn't a nested hierarchy because sons have fathers" is also just plain wrong.
Again just stating your nonsensical views does not make it so.
And YOU want to lecture me about education?!!! LoL!
Ya see blipey, nested hierarchies are built on numerous characteristic traits and "whose your daddy?" does NOT qualify as a characteristic trait.
Also people have both a father AND a mother- biology 101.
The best any family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy. That is just a fact of life. And it also happens to follow the rules of hierarchy theory.
At 4:39 PM,
blipey said…
I'm not going through the whole discussion again, Joe. But, unlike yourself or Ftk, I will answer your questions.
1. How is it wrong?
Your statement was:
"He is just another node in another subset. And therefore your use of it as an example of nested hierarchy is also wrong."
A nested hierarchy looks like this:
X
/ \
X X
/\ /\
X X X X
/\ /\ /\ /\
X X XX XX X X
and so on. You'll notice that each of the Xs is merely a subset of some other X. That this is so in no way invalidates the above structure as a nested hierarchy (which was your claim).
The claim was made more specific than X when you applied it to the paternal family tree structure we were discussing. Now, instead of Xs we are discussing fathers. So, your claim that Xs (fathers) are merely subsets of other Xs (other fathers) makes this concrete--not a fanciful construct of my imagination.
What do you think, Ftk? Still on board with the logical fortitude of IDers?
I know you have problems with my answers, Joe. But can you really claim I am dodging them? Now how about some straight answers from you once in a while.
At 5:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Ummm, just because you can structure something to resemble a nested hierarchy that does NOT make it a nested hierarchy.
Only someone totally ignorant would even attempt such a thing.
And again- according to the rules of hierarchy theory the levels are set up by MULTIPLE CHARACTERISTIC TRAITS.
"Whose your daddy?" is NOT a charcteristic trait.
You could not walk into a room of 100 guys and place them in there proper family and order JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM. And if a nested hierarchy existed one should be able to do just that.
So please Erik, keep telling me that I am wrong.
That is the surest way to know that I am right.
Now, what I was referring to is your top X actually isn't really the top X in a paternal family tree- never mind that a paternal family tree is a man-made mental construct. IOW you have an ARBITRARY starting point.
IOW if you went with REALITY and used both parents you would most likely never end up with a nested hierarchy structure.
A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY
At 5:36 PM,
blipey said…
Now, what I was referring to is your top X actually isn't really the top X in a paternal family tree- never mind that a paternal family tree is a man-made mental construct. IOW you have an ARBITRARY starting point.
Yes, an arbitrary starting point. That's because a nested hierarchy doesn't require specific starting points.
Like I said, I can't have discussion about things which you refuse to define correctly or consistently. Both our positions are here for everyone to see.
I'm good with that.
At 6:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, an arbitrary starting point. That's because a nested hierarchy doesn't require specific starting points.
So if one starts at the last possible level where is the nested hierarchy?
Like I said, I can't have discussion about things which you refuse to define correctly or consistently.
I have used the same definition and criteria, which I re-posted, since the beginning.
Both our positions are here for everyone to see.
Yes and I thank you.
I'm good with that.
Thanks again.
At 6:20 PM,
blipey said…
The nested hierarchy is a structure, independent of its composite pieces. There is no "starting" to a NH; it is by definition a group of things.
At 8:32 AM,
blipey said…
I've asked before and I will again. Will you draw us a picture of a nested hierarchy? That way we can see what one might look like. It will help with your argument.
At 10:27 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
The nested hierarchy is a structure, independent of its composite pieces.
The structure is dependent on those pieces. The pieces make the structure.
Those pieces are structured by their characteristic traits.
blipey:
There is no "starting" to a NH; it is by definition a group of things.
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
It starts with the Kingdom. And the Kingdom, as well as all other groups, are very well defined.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you total ignorance of all things mathematical and scientific.
As for "helping an argument" why don't you help yours by showing us one scientific reference of a paternal family tree used as an example of a nested hierarchy.
At 4:27 PM,
blipey said…
Kingdom
| \
Phylum A Phylum B
| \ | \
Class A Class B Class C Class D
This s then an acceptable example of a nested hierarchy?
At 6:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes it is, but only because it abides by the principles of hierarchy theory.
IOW it's not the structure that determines whether or not a nested hierarchy exists.
I take it you can't find that reference I asked for. I know why...
At 6:26 PM,
blipey said…
From your link, Joe.
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
Notice the bolded parts. Two things that you have disputed in the past and I assume that you still do.
At 7:43 AM,
Joe G said…
nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.
I have never disputed that. As a matter of fact that has been my point from before I even posted the link.
Thus an army is a nested hierarchy.
I have never disputed that either. And I even used it as an example of NH- again before I posted the link.
However this is very relevant:
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
But I doubt blipey will understand.
At 10:18 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey- I take it that entertainment is the only thing you have to offer.
Not that I wasn't already fully aware of that fact but you're not very good at it. And your tact isn't even original.
and to address this:
Oh yeah! You're already on my list, Mr."I've embarrassed too many scientists to remember".
I've told you I'm visiting and I'll be expecting the list of scientists you once promised.
If I can't remember, what makes you think I would have a list?
Or did you once again put words in my mouth?
Also I would love to see the alleged "promise". I know the conditions I laid out for you and the reasons behind those conditions. The reasons were never addressed and the conditions remain.
At 12:14 PM,
blipey said…
No, Joe. A general is not like a father in regard to the ordering of an army as a nested hierarchy.
An army is a NH because it does not matter who specifically is at each station. In regard to military command, a general is a node for which it makes no sense to define him as a bunch of soldiers.
In regard to ARMY, it does make sense to define the LEVEL OF GENERAL as incorporating and being made up of lower levels of non-specific soldiers.
The level of general can be compared to the level of father. So, the organization of human beings in a paternal family tree is like that of an army, therefor it is a NH.
At 4:00 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
No, Joe. A general is not like a father in regard to the ordering of an army as a nested hierarchy.
I didn't say that. I didn't imply that.
the snippet YOU posted:
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army.
What I said:
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
But thank you for once again demonstrating you cannot follow along.
An army is a NH because it does not matter who specifically is at each station.
Military command is a non-nested hierarchy- just like the link says. Or don't you understand English?
Ya see an Army is a nested hierarchy because of the Following- Region/ theater, Army group, Army, Corps, Division, Brigade, etc.
And that follows:
For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy.
At 5:40 PM,
Joe G said…
In regard to ARMY, it does make sense to define the LEVEL OF GENERAL as incorporating and being made up of lower levels of non-specific soldiers.
Only in your little and warped world.
At 11:54 PM,
blipey said…
Please draw the NH that is ARMY. Since you agree that an ARMY is a NH, this should be easy for you.
At 7:01 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Please draw the NH that is ARMY. Since you agree that an ARMY is a NH, this should be easy for you.
I just gave it to you.
Are you too stupid to draw it for yourself?
Ya see an Army is a nested hierarchy because of the Following- Region/ theater, Army group, Army, Corps, Division, Brigade, etc.
see military organization
hint: Region/ theater is on top
At 8:30 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Oh yeah! You're already on my list, Mr."I've embarrassed too many scientists to remember".
I've told you I'm visiting and I'll be expecting the list of scientists you once promised.
If I can't remember, what makes you think I would have a list?
Or did you once again put words in my mouth?
Also I would love to see the alleged "promise". I know the conditions I laid out for you and the reasons behind those conditions. The reasons were never addressed and the conditions remain.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Something else for blipey to ignore-
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human. This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.
Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.page 10
At 12:51 PM,
blipey said…
Um, how is ARMY a NH, if it is a node only in some flow chart?
ARMY is not a NH because it is contained in other things. ARMY can be in a NH with different criteria than that of Military Organization.
However, if ARMY is in and of itself a NH then you still need to provide the structure of the NH that is ARMY. Please draw it now. I can, but since I already know what I think it is, it is only helpful if I know what you think it is. Then we can compare notes.
At 10:45 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey just loves to expose its ignorance. Now it is ignorance of military organization even though I spoon fed it.
"The operational Army consists of numbered armies, corps, divisions, brigades, and battalions that conduct full spectrum operations around the world."
US Army Nested Hierarchy
Ya see blipey while you think you know, I know because I have been there, done that- studied military organizations. Ands ALL you had to be capable of was how to use a search engine as well as having the ability to comprehend what you are reading. It appears that you are capable of neither.
At 12:45 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW blipey-
US Army would be the top node, which links down to how ever many threaters there are, which in turn links to how ever many field armies each theater contains. Each field army links to of its corps. The corps link to the divisions it contains. The corps link to its brigades, the brigades link to their respective battalions.
Can you finish the nested hierarchy given all the data in the links I provied?
At 12:56 PM,
blipey said…
Nicely done, Joe. You actually provided a piece of information. That wasn't very hard, was it?
I think we can agree on the general structure of the NH of ARMY.
One caveat, however. The diagram in your link could be interpreted to mean that every sub-unit (company, brigade, etc) can be a direct descendant of ARMY. I don't believe that this is the intention of the diagram (just a space limitation).
So we agree on the the NH of ARMY if you will agree with me that all units under ARMY are not direct descendants of ARMY, but only of the units directly above them in the diagram.
At 3:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Nicely done, Joe. You actually provided a piece of information. That wasn't very hard, was it?
That's not the point.
If I was discussing this witth an educated person it wouldn't have been necessary.
One caveat, however. The diagram in your link could be interpreted to mean that every sub-unit (company, brigade, etc) can be a direct descendant of ARMY.
Not at all. You just don't know how to read the diagram.
So we agree on the the NH of ARMY if you will agree with me that all units under ARMY are not direct descendants of ARMY, but only of the units directly above them in the diagram.
There aren't any descedants. Just groups of commonly grouped troops who all belong with the US Army.
That way the operation can be properly supported- or at least someone knows at least basically how those troops are dispersed.
And all this has done was to distract from the fact that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.
Thanks again for proving the best you can do is obstruct and distract.
But that's to be expected from someone who thinks I can provide a list of something I can't remember.
That's a good one ...
At 3:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Let's look at the diagram that gave blipey so much trouble:
US Army NH
The top block is labeled Field Army
Under it are 5 Corps- Only one of which is labeled. (that is most likely what confused the blipey)
It states in the "Field Army" box that each FA can contain between 2-5 Corps. The diagram shows the max of 5.
Next comes the Division. EACH Corps contains 2-5 divisions.
The diagram shows one Corps which contains 5 Divisions, with only one Division being labeled.
I would think it is assumed that what goes on under one also carries over to the others.
It is clear from the diagram that in order to go from "squad" to "Field Army" all the other nodes are in the path.
That is the point- to be able to take a soldier by his insignia and place him in the proper place.
Just like we do with organisms- via precise and specific organizational definitions.
At 3:58 PM,
blipey said…
Perhaps "descendant" is a poor choice of words. However, the point is much th same; I think we agree. I just want to make sure before we continue.
Any unit in the structure (say "Squad") is completely contained in the unit above it ("Platoon" in this case). However, there exist such Platoons that a particular Squad is not contained in. This is what I meant by using the word "descendants". It is also what I meant by the possible unclarity of the diagram. I merely stated that it was possible to misconstrue what the NH was in that diagram--not that it was wrong or could not be easily learned (I guess you missed that part).
So, do we agree that there exists some "Squad A" that is contained in "Platoon X" and that "Squad A" is not contained in any "Platoon ~X"?
Likewise IF "Squad A" is contained in "Platoon X" AND "Platoon X" is not contained in "Company Y", THEN there exists no situation in which "Squad A" is contained in "Company Y".
This is my contention for a NH. Does it jibe with yours?
At 4:49 PM,
Joe G said…
A soldier in any particular squad (ie node) is not only a member of the squad (node) but also a member of each and every node that leads to his squad from the top node- in the case of the diagram provided that would be Field Army- all at the same time!
That is how you know you have a nested hierarchy- when it can be collapsed like one of those collapsing travel cups- now you see the layers, now you don't.
My contention for NH can be found in the link provided, as well in the examples provided.
Do you have a point or is this just more distraction from the fact you can't support your position?
At 5:04 PM,
blipey said…
I do have a point. It could be more easily gotten at if you could just answer questions without spitting on yourself. I don't care what your answers are, just that you provide them. If you provide no answers it is hard to move a discussion forward.
I think you've actually provided enough detail for me to say that we agree on what a nested hierarchy is.
Indeed, a soldier is a member of each increasing rank of classification. However, he is not a member of every higher classification of rank. A simple yes or no answer to my logic problem would have sufficed, but I think you answered it in the affirmative.
So, if we take the NH that is ARMY and apply it to biology, what can we get?
We get the Paternal Family Tree (hereafter TREE).
The NH that is TREE is organized exactly like that of ARMY.
At the top of ARMY we have Field Army. At the top of TREE we have Father A.
The next level of ARMY includes several Corps. The next level of TREE includes several Sons (Bob, Dave, Steve).
The next lower level of ARMY has several Divisions. These Divisions are each contained in One AND ONLY One of the Corps. The next lower level of TREE contains several more Sons (Chris, Erik, Brian, Alex, Steve Jr., etc). Each of these sons is contained in One AND ONLY One of the Sons from the second level.
In this way, a paternal family tree is a NH, contrary to your previous contentions. That is my point.
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
One more time for the learning impaired:
From the link explaining the principles of hierarchy theory:
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army.
What I said:
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
So, if we take the NH that is ARMY and apply it to biology, what can we get?
We get the Paternal Family Tree (hereafter TREE).
No, we do not.
You still have to follow the rules of hierarchy theory. A paternal family tree (a biological impossibility BTW) violates those rules.
Here I will show you:
At the top of ARMY we have Field Army. At the top of TREE we have Father A.
And father A will always be on top and can NEVER be collapsed.
The next level of ARMY includes several Corps. The next level of TREE includes several Sons (Bob, Dave, Steve).
And they will ALWAYS be below Father A and will never be included with him in that scheme.
Ya see, just as I have already told you, the soldier belongs to ALL levels AT THE SAME TIME. The same does NOT hold for your "paternal family tree".
Ya see blipey it isn't enough to look like a nested hierarchy. It actually has to follw the rules. The rules which you seem to ignore.
IOW just like Zachriel before you you choose to argue from ignorance.
At 4:24 PM,
blipey said…
JoeG: Ya see, just as I have already told you, the soldier belongs to ALL levels AT THE SAME TIME.
So it is your contention that Soldier Steve is a PFC, a Captain, and a General all at the same time?
If this is not your contention, please explain the situation in which a unit can be all units at the same time.
Unless the following is what you mean:
The Sons of Steve (who is a son of Bob) are members of the Family of Bob (who is the son of Chris). In this way, the Sons of Steve are member of all the following classifications:
1. Family of Steve
2. Family of Bob
3. Family of Chris
Likewise a soldier is a member of all the following classifications:
1. Platoon A
2. Company X
3. Division C
The structures in this case are identical.
At 9:16 AM,
Joe G said…
JoeG: Ya see, just as I have already told you, the soldier belongs to ALL levels AT THE SAME TIME.
blipey further exposes its willful ignorance:
So it is your contention that Soldier Steve is a PFC, a Captain, and a General all at the same time?
As I have already posted:
A soldier in any particular squad (ie node) is not only a member of the squad (node) but also a member of each and every node that leads to his squad from the top node- in the case of the diagram provided that would be Field Army- all at the same time!
Context blipey- which is something you always ignore. The context of our discussion pertaing to Armies and soldiers is about how the US Army is a nested hierarchy. It is a nested hierarchy because the soldier belongs to all levels (simultaneously) leading to his/ her squad.
From the link explaining the principles of hierarchy theory:
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army.
What I said:
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
So blipey chooses willful ignorance.
No surprise there...
At 9:41 AM,
Joe G said…
And one more time for the learning impaired:
In a nested hierarchy levels are determined by characteristic traits. "Who's your daddy?" is NOT a characteristic trait.
"Family of Bob" (for example) isn't any good if there is more than one "Bob" in the family.
And it still remains that there really isn't a paternal family tree due to biological constraints. That plus the fact there isn't any true beginning, just various arbitrary starting points.
In both examples I gave there is one and only one true beginning.
At 12:48 PM,
Joe G said…
I think you've actually provided enough detail for me to say that we agree on what a nested hierarchy is.
That is doubtful because you thern say:
Indeed, a soldier is a member of each increasing rank of classification.
No he/ she isn't. A soldier in the US Army is a member of every group starting at the top all the way to his/ her squad.
Had you the capability to follow along you would have known that.
However, he is not a member of every higher classification of rank.
I wasn't even discussing rank in my examples. Rank has nothing to do with it.
IOW once again your prove all you can do is twist what is being discussed into something else.
But I do understand that is the only position you have- twisted.
So, if we take the NH that is ARMY and apply it to biology, what can we get?
We get the nested hierarchy expected of a Common Design scenario.
I take it the blipey doesn't understand that before anything can be considered a nested hierarchy it has to follow the rules provided.
IOW it just isn't enough for someone to twist something into some nested hierarchy-type structure. It actually has to have the required characteristics.
At 12:51 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm still waiting for an explanation:
Oh yeah! You're already on my list, Mr. "I've embarrassed too many scientists to remember".
I've told you I'm visiting and I'll be expecting the list of scientists you once promised.
If I said I can't remember only an idiot would think there is a list.
At 11:52 PM,
blipey said…
JoeG: "Family of Bob" (for example) isn't any good if there is more than one "Bob" in the family.
This may be the single stupidest thing that anyone has ever said. Ever.
It also nicely captures the essence of the mind of a conspiracy theorist. You have no ability to extrapolate information from similar input.
So there are two Bobs (Bob 1 and Bob 2), they are not the same person. They can be easily told apart from each other and their children can be identified as being from one or the other Bob (and certainly not both).
So, what exception do you take with the following:
The Sons of Steve (who is the son of Chris) are members of each of the following classifications:
1. Family of Steve
2. Family of Chris
Do you contend that it is wrong to place them in either of these categories?
At 9:51 AM,
Joe G said…
JoeG: "Family of Bob" (for example) isn't any good if there is more than one "Bob" in the family.
This may be the single stupidest thing that anyone has ever said. Ever.
That's what happens when I respond to total stupidity.
What is even more stupid is to ignore the rules of hierarchy and continue to push for a non-nested hierarchy to be a nested hierarchy despite all the facts that prevent it from being one.
And the following is nothing but pure projection:
It also nicely captures the essence of the mind of a conspiracy theorist. You have no ability to extrapolate information from similar input.
From the link explaining the principles of hierarchy theory:
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army.
What I said:
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
So blipey chooses willful ignorance.
No surprise there...
What part about that don't you understand?
At 12:51 PM,
blipey said…
Excellent. Are you denying that the the Sons of Steve (who is a son of Bob) are in either of these categories:
1. Family of Steve
2. Family of Bob
Which Family or families do you deny they are in? Or do you accept that they are members of both families?
At 12:56 PM,
blipey said…
Can't believe I forgot to ask you to clear this nugget up. Why can't two Sons of Steve who are both named Dave be told apart?
At 1:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Can't believe I forgot to ask you to clear this nugget up. Why can't two Sons of Steve who are both named Dave be told apart?
They can be but that's not the point. If we have two people in the same TREE with the same name then we have the possibility of placing their sons in the wrong set.
IOW the definitions will not be specific.
And it still remains that "who's your daddy?" is NOT a characteristic trait from which to draw a nested hierarchy.
Excellent. Are you denying that the the Sons of Steve (who is a son of Bob) are in either of these categories:
No blipey. I am denying that a paternal family tree (which doesn't exist in the real world) cannot be a nested hierarchy for all the reasons listed.
And I am saying that anyone who tries to claim that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy is totally ignorant of what it takes to be considered a nested hierarchy. They are also out of touch with reality.
blipey, you are both ignorant of what it takes to make a nested hierarchy and you are out of touch with reality.
That is very evident from your posts.
From the link explaining the principles of hierarchy theory:
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army.
What I said:
Ya see a father is like the general. He is at the top of his particular family but does not consist of his family. Therefore, as I have stated too many times to count, the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
What part about that don't you understand?
I also started a new thread which refutes your contention:
Why a Paternal Family Tree is NOT a Nested Hierarchy- AGAIN!
And I am sure you will ignore it also.
IOW it fully appears that you are quite content to argue from ignorance.
I shouldn't expect anything else from a freakin' clown...
At 11:58 PM,
blipey said…
JoeG: I am denying that a paternal family tree (which doesn't exist in the real world)
I stand corrected from earlier; this is the stupidest thing you've ever said.
You are now contending that not only is a paternal family tree not a NH, but that one can't even be constructed. You can't be serious.
I know who my dad was, and his dad, and his dad, and his dad. Looks like I might be able to construct a paternal family tree with that knowledge.
Are you seriously saying that family trees can't be constructed?
At 8:56 AM,
Joe G said…
You are now contending that not only is a paternal family tree not a NH, but that one can't even be constructed.
Wrong again- as usual.
Ya see blipey "paternal" family trees only exist in our minds. They are a mental contruct.
A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.
When you can show that a father, alone (without the aid of a female) can give rise to a family you will have a point. Until then the only point you have is at the top of your pointy little head.
Are you seriously saying that family trees can't be constructed?
I never said, thought nor implied such a thing. However family trees are not nested hierarchies either.
Willfull ignorance indeed. That is the blipey way.
Way to go clowny...
At 10:46 AM,
blipey said…
You are insane, Joe. Seek help. A paternal family tree requires that we know one and only one thing: who someone's dad is.
Nobody's saying that's the only way to organize a family tree. But to deny that people can be categorized by who there father is is purely insane.
Look, I can organize people by any criteria whatsoever. Friends of Dave, I can organize people by this criteria alone. People who are 5 feet tall; I can organize them by this criteria alone. People who are the Sons of Steve; I can organize them by this criteria alone.
You can file information away in any scheme you want to. The following is a valid scheme:
Steve has two sons, Bob and Chris. Bob has 1 son, Dave. Chris has 3 sons: Erik, Lenny, and Reggie. Based on this knowledge alone, the following chart can be constructed:
-------------Steve
------------/-----\
---------Bob-----Chris
---------/-----/----|--\
-------Dave___Erik-Lenny-Reggie
There is nothing wrong with that chart. It organizes the one piece of information it is meant to: who's in which father's family.
Seek professional help.
At 11:40 AM,
Joe G said…
You are insane, Joe.
And you are an obvious ignorant dumbass.
If I am "insane" it is only because I am trying to reason with a dumbass imbecilic clown.
A paternal family tree requires that we know one and only one thing: who someone's dad is.
Again no family tree could be constructed without a female. Biology 101.
And also AGAIN, "who's your daddy?" is NOT a characteristic trait and is only ONE definition.
But to deny that people can be categorized by who there father is is purely insane.
I never said, thought nor implied that.
Obviously it is blipey the dickhead that needs professional help.
That one can create a paternal family tree does not mean such a tree is a nested hierarchy!
Get that through your pointed little head!
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"
The following are just some of the criteria which must be met before it can be considered a nested hierarchy. (note that a paternal family tree does not fit any of them)
Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.
Note the word "properties".
Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.
Note the words "set of definitions"
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.
Note the words "several criteria".
To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
As I have already stated several times- a father is like the general. He is on the top of his particular family tree but does not consist of his family. Therefore the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
That this point is even being debated just further exposes the anti-reality agenda of those who say a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy. Only through ignorance can one make such a claim.
Can anyone find one example of a paternal family tree being passed off as a nested hierarchy by someone with a PhD in science?
IOW blipey, once again you have demonstrated you are an asshole with no equal- although I am sure there are millions of evos pretty close to your status.
Look, I can organize people by any criteria whatsoever.
Yes you can. But that does not mean said organization will give you a nested hierarchy.
THAT is what is being debated you ignorant, twisted fuck.
At 11:42 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Why is it that you choose to ignore the rules of hierarchy?
I didn't write them. I just abide by them, as all intelligent and reasonable people do.
So what is your problem with them?
At 1:33 PM,
Joe G said…
blipey,
Which local Park offers you the best chance to pick up children- Baldwin or White?
You picked a good loaction though- pretty much right between the two. If you miss at one just go home take a break and then hit the other...
At 10:04 AM,
blipey said…
Joe, you need to be able to follow along--not just with what others say but with what you say as well.
For example, in your haste to show just how a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy, you made the following claim:
a paternal family tree (which doesn't exist)
then you make the following claim:
That one can create a paternal family tree does not mean such a tree is a nested hierarchy!
So which is it, Joe? Can a paternal family tree be constructed, or can't it?
You do see why discussing something with you is utterly useless?
Try to iron out one point before you move on to buffoonery in another.
Assuming (and this is a big if) that you give us an answer on whether or not a paternal family tree can be constructed (since you appear to swing both ways), how exactly do you think the chart a couple comments up is wrong?
Remember to answer the question on construction of a paternal family tree, first--or your answer will have no grounds on which to stand. Little details help.
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe, you need to be able to follow along--not just with what others say but with what you say as well.
I know what I post blipey. Obviously it is you that can't follow along.
For example, in your haste to show just how a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy, you made the following claim:
a paternal family tree (which doesn't exist)
Why did you edit what I posted? Why can't you keep what was posted in context?
This is what I posted:
A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.
What part about that don't you understand?
then you make the following claim:
That one can create a paternal family tree does not mean such a tree is a nested hierarchy!
So which is it, Joe? Can a paternal family tree be constructed, or can't it?
Again a paternal family tree can be constructed. Many mental constructs don't have to exist in reality.
You do see why discussing something with you is utterly useless?
Actually this proves that discussing anything with YOU is utterly useless.
Thanks again for proving something I already knew.
Assuming (and this is a big if) that you give us an answer on whether or not a paternal family tree can be constructed (since you appear to swing both ways), how exactly do you think the chart a couple comments up is wrong?
It's not wrong. It just isn't an example of a nested hierarchy.
Ya see clowny you continue to ignore the rules of hierarchy theory. That you continue to do so proves it is utterly useless to discuss this with you.
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
As I have already stated several times- a father is like the general. He is on the top of his particular family tree but does not consist of his family. Therefore the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.
from above:
There is nothing wrong with that chart. It organizes the one piece of information it is meant to: who's in which father's family.
And "who's your daddy?" is not a characteristic trait. Not only that it is only one definition where several are called for.
That is if you follow the rules.
But I see the best you still have is distraction and a never ending ability to be an obtuse dickhead.
At 11:02 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey not only lives on a dead end but all discussions with it are a dead end.
Coincidence?
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
All future comments pertaining to a paternal family tree should be made in the appropriate thread:
Why a Paternal Family Tree is Not a Nested Hierarchy- AGAIN!
It would also be nice if the comments actually followed the OP, meaning read the OP and make the response accordingly by responding to the points it contains.
This thread is closed...
<< Home