The Gaming Den

Humanity are becoming wusses:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... nnel=11604

Israel continues to piss me off. Naturally, they're likely gonna get this closed off whether they're guilty or not:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... me=topNews

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59G0YU20091017

Meikle641 wrote:Humanity are becoming wusses:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... nnel=11604

Yes, according to a book we are all wimps because any Neanderthal woman could have beaten Arnold the Governator in an arm wrestle. I really fail to see the point of a book claiming that even if we were all body builders, we'd still by physically weak by the standards of an extinct hominid.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Meikle641 wrote:Humanity are becoming wusses:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... nnel=11604

Yes, according to a book we are all wimps because any Neanderthal woman could have beaten Arnold the Governator in an arm wrestle. I really fail to see the point of a book claiming that even if we were all body builders, we'd still by physically weak by the standards of an extinct hominid.

What I particularly like is the implication that the measure of man is his physical prowess.

I mean, okay, things were a lot more hardcore in the old days. But, really, why is this important?

Crissa wrote:I see children as a responsibility, like pets. You need to live in a space appropriate to having them, even if that costs more.

I fail to see how having children is more of a right than having purple hair or putting up holiday lights. And why is it suddenly compared (without any arguments as to why) to other protected classes like race or sexual preference?

-Crissa

Anyone that cannot conceive of why an individual having children should somehow be more of a right than the desire for different colored hair should be kept far away from any discussion in which they invoke ANYONE's empathic ignorance.

I don't think you could have come up with a more innocently earnest yet comically misguided response than the one you posted.


HINT: "Dear Criterion-Selected Individual, you cannot have kids or put up holiday lights" involves a criterion that you, as an individual, have just abrogated to some collective other than yourself. By doing so, they also get the right to say "Dear Sinner, your cohabitation is hereby barred and by the way, no tax break for you".

That you missed this because of your jarringly subjective personal perceptions on these issues should be a strong reminder to yourself to, in the future, take such things into account when they come from the other side.

CatharzGodfoot wrote: Yes, according to a book we are all wimps because any Neanderthal woman could have beaten Arnold the Governator in an arm wrestle. I really fail to see the point of a book claiming that even if we were all body builders, we'd still by physically weak by the standards of an extinct hominid.

Uh, what? Notice they also compare us to Roman Centurians and the Greeks? I don't recall those ccultures being another species.

Meikle641 wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote: Yes, according to a book we are all wimps because any Neanderthal woman could have beaten Arnold the Governator in an arm wrestle. I really fail to see the point of a book claiming that even if we were all body builders, we'd still by physically weak by the standards of an extinct hominid.

Uh, what? Notice they also compare us to Roman Centurians and the Greeks? I don't recall those ccultures being another species.

Um... So?

I can beat all of those people in an arm wrestling contest. Like, easy.

First I shoot them with a gun. From inside a tank. Then I declare myself winner.

Why do we care? Are we even surprised?

Yes, once people started surviving and having kids by avoiding physical confrontations, surprise surprise, people who are less good at physical confrontation got to propagate more.

I would be fucking surprised if the average roman couldn't kick the average modern mans ass.

Actually, I WOULD be surprised, since I'd imagine the modern have better nutrition and healthcare.

Boolean wrote:Actually, I WOULD be surprised, since I'd imagine the modern have better nutrition and healthcare.

Umm?

No.

The average person today might have better healthcare, in the since that they can cure shit, and will live longer, but that has nothing to do with being buff and awesome.

As for nutrition. We get more sure, but most people don't actually get better, about the same.

And both of those are enviromental factors easily trumped by:

Roman: Builds a goddam Road.

vs

Modern: Sits on a fucking couch.

If you don't actually use muscles, you are going to be a bitch next to someone who does.

Environmentally, Romans have the advantage.

Genetically: Small people can totally live to the age of 40 and have kids in the modern world.

So yes, there is no reason at all why the 'average' modern person would be more buff and awesome than the average roman at all.

For some time, the Roman roads were built by the legions. They doubled as explorers/settlers and most of them had another trade to fall back on (and also to contribute to any settlement they became a part of). But given the manual labor...Well, I'd assume a mason or carpenter would be pretty strong compared to someone today, and the trades would be more common.

So, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see a beatdown happening.

Roman centurions are tiny people. Put into the army well before puberty has finished and weighted down with armor and occasional privation they never reached full size. Nonetheless, given relatively constant exercise and what was (for the day) amazing nutrition and rigorous battle training, they were fucking hard core. In their time, they repeatedly went up against armies of untrained, malnourished levy troups that outnumbered them ten to one and butchered them (inflicting 200 times the losses they received wasn't even weird). You can see similar effects from the training of Alexander's men and the Khmer warrior tribes.

And yeah, they can probably kick my ass. But you know what? Modern man does have an answer to that bullshit. Not just in the "This is my boom stick" kind of way, but also in our own dedicated warriors. You put some guy like Tavoris Cloud in a fisticuffs matchup against a Roman centurion and he will rip the Italiano apart. And if we're going weapons versus weapons, I will put a modern Gurkha Sergeant against pretty much whatever ancient warrior you got.

-Username17

I don't think its quite fair to pit a professional boxer against a soldier in a boxing match and use the boxer's expected superiority as signifying anything. I'm pretty sure that the gladiators and some temple-dwelling/village-protecting kung fu badass or Maori champion would measure up against any professional warrior in single combat.

Honestly I don't think there's any performance of physical activity in which modern humanity has surpassed ancient humanity, except for maybe free climbing and other activities that arise out of modern leisure rather than ancient necessity.

We can be enamored of modern specialists because they're awesome at whatever, but I don't believe that nullifies the capabilities of previous generations.

Even militias like the US Marines, SAS and Mossad teach some pretty hardcore fighting techniques, generally being "Take various effective martial arts, cut out any part that isn't relevant to killing someone right now", so I'm fairly sure they could take on Centurions. Likewise if you want a no-nonsense (but weaponless) fight with a gladiator on one side, pick a champion from various MMA leagues to go against them.

We don't carry the pure power these days, however we make up for it like this: people enjoy fighting and hurting each other, so over the centuries, we still perfect ways to be better at hurting each other.

Meikle641 wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote: Yes, according to a book we are all wimps because any Neanderthal woman could have beaten Arnold the Governator in an arm wrestle. I really fail to see the point of a book claiming that even if we were all body builders, we'd still by physically weak by the standards of an extinct hominid.

Uh, what? Notice they also compare us to Roman Centurians and the Greeks? I don't recall those ccultures being another species.

That's totally fair. I was trying to be a bit sensationalist--almost as sensationalist as the book.

I think it's an interesting thing to research, but the style is off-putting.
And I still maintain that comparing Arnold to a Neanderthal tells us exactly nothing about the extent of human capabilities.

[Edit] I guess that my problem with the book is that the interesting results become suspect when bullshit arguments like that are used. [/Edit]

Romans actually used gay quite well in the armies as well. Because if the warrior cared more about the man next to him he would fight more to protect him and lead to more success.

Compared to today's idea of gays in the military.

Have no real idea what is gong on here, but I say that gives another plus to Romans.

So carry on.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
I think it's an interesting thing to research, but the style is off-putting.
And I still maintain that comparing Arnold to a Neanderthal tells us exactly nothing about the extent of human capabilities.

Neanderthals were human. Seriously, they were Homo sapiens as well.

Depends on who you ask. Some scientists classify them as a subspecies of humanity (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs. Homo sapiens sapiens), and others classify them as a separate species in the same genus (Homo neanderthalensis vs. Homo sapiens).

Regardless, even if they are the same species, it's like comparing a pit bull to a corgi. Of course one's going to be stronger and faster than the other.

One of those scientists was just on Discovery Science this morning saying evolution was wrong and all the creatures on the planet now just appeared by the grace of God around 10,000 years ago. There was no creatures before then.

Just because they got a degree, doesn't mean their rich daddy didn't buy it for them, so like with doctors get a second opinion from any scientist, and then use your own judgment.

Wait, you can't change the color of your house, replace to a more modern siding, use a more flame retardant roofing, or eliminate your lawn in an HOA. You can't park outside, use powertools, have dogs of the wrong breed or put chicken on your acre of land. You can't change from cable to satellite, and you can't have blue hair. You can't add swings or leave toys out.

But they can't say only adults can live here?

So, you're okay with them bringing kids in to see the scary-ass movie or interrupting your lap dance or happy hour or whatnot because the right to have kids supplants all rights to have a space that's not built for children?

I can restrict them from having a yappy dog, evict them for yelling, but I can't raise a slight concern that they have children interrupting my morning sleep? And your reasoning is that having kids is a natural right, like who you sleep with, because it totally doesn't impact the neighborhood somehow. It's just a natural right to have children any way you please.

No here did I say they couldn't have a child. Just they needed to have a home that's child-appropriate. Just like children shouldn't be in the sawmill, maybe they aren't wanted in the retirement community or the college dorm.

-Crissa

PS: Taking DNA and testing it vs random subjects is a bad way to find matches. It's more likely to give a false positive, just like fingerprinting, when too few points of reference are used.

shadzar wrote:One of those scientists was just on Discovery Science this morning saying evolution was wrong and all the creatures on the planet now just appeared by the grace of God around 10,000 years ago. There was no creatures before then.

Just because they got a degree, doesn't mean their rich daddy didn't buy it for them, so like with doctors get a second opinion from any scientist, and then use your own judgment.

You also want to make sure that their doctorate is actually related to the field they are discussing. A professor with a P.h.D. in English typically isn't qualified to be presented as an "expert" on most scientific subjects, but the Jesus Freaks have no qualms about engaging in a little bit of intellectual dishonesty if they think it makes them sound more reasonable.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

shadzar wrote:One of those scientists was just on Discovery Science this morning saying evolution was wrong and all the creatures on the planet now just appeared by the grace of God around 10,000 years ago. There was no creatures before then.

Just because they got a degree, doesn't mean their rich daddy didn't buy it for them, so like with doctors get a second opinion from any scientist, and then use your own judgment.

You also want to make sure that their doctorate is actually related to the field they are discussing. A professor with a P.h.D. in English typically isn't qualified to be presented as an "expert" on most scientific subjects, but the Jesus Freaks have no qualms about engaging in a little bit of intellectual dishonesty if they think it makes them sound more reasonable.

This one was shown to be a PhD in the Earth and its inner working. Don't remember the title, but plate tectonics and all that jazz. He claimed that Noah's flood was giant rivers of lava coming form the Earth's core while he wa denouncing evolution in favor of creation.

Yeah, and Michael Behe was a biochemist.

shadzar wrote:He claimed that Noah's flood was giant rivers of lava coming form the Earth's core while he wa denouncing evolution in favor of creation.

I heard Moses' trip across the Red Sea was the result of Santorini volcano exploding, from a crazy-ass particle physicist. He also claimed to have invented his own probability distribution that described everything from volcanic dust to stock market.

That sounds like the guy that was on the Discovery Science channel show.

My favorite theory on the "flood" has always been the Black Sea deluge theory. It's about as credibale as any other theory (in other words, not credibable at all) but it's at a nice time in history (5500 BC) so that in a few thousand years even a mild flood on the level of New Orleans and Katrina could have become so blown up in proportion that it covered the whole world and that almost everyone died (but we got better).