User talk:Dave MacIntosh

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Dave MacIntosh!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

'bout time someone welcomed you, I suppose. Certainly not Anonymous user, whoever that is.[{{#rand:1|4}}][{{#rand:4|10}}] 14:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Specifically what is the problem? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Our front page says we welcome opposing views, but in practice people are hostile. (This is bad.)
Your use of ad hominems ("Cheap politically motivated strawmen") and failure to provide sources doesn't help. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Failure to provide sources for the fact that you are publishing claims which are not supported by your references? What sources could I provide? I'm simply pointing out that you're misrepresenting sources, and getting nothing but waffle. I've identified an error in your article. Rather than change that you accuse me of "not providing sources" based on nothing. It is empty disparagement. And especially after I've identified your poor use of sources, and you are doing nothing to correct it. You, sir, are a disgraceful hypocrite. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
1: "Lol, are you retarded? It is impossible for an Indian and African elephant to be in the same location?"
2: You continuously harp on one point -- Templeton miscites Smith -- and utterly, utterly fail to note other claims not supported by our references. I added a note -- "Templeton miscited Smith" -- and yet you act as if all of Templeton's writings must be removed for this error. You have not even critically responded to the BON's various citations in response to your claim that "nobody" uses the 25% rule. You've cited no sources, provided no URLs, nothing. You are the ultimate in do your own research.
And that's fine. You're welcome to stay. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Obviously that error by Templeton must be removed. If it is not I will not bother with the other errors. I did not expect you to remove any fake material that was opposed to the race concept. How can I provide a source for something not being used? The burden is on you to show that it has currency in biology. It has none. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

[Removed by Dave for some reason, readded by me.] Christopher (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There's much ambiguity in Smith et al. Nowhere does Smith mention the "75% rule", so if Templeton confused it with Fst, he is hardly to blame. As for misrepresentations, Dave MacIntosh has used a table that contains outright manipulation of science sources: 1% Fst subspecies don't exist, sorry Dave. (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
If we have burden of proof, then BON fulfilled it. Again: you fail to respond to anything else than your particular pet issue. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That's completely false. You are a liar. I was taking one point at a time. Why would I waste my time addressing several points when you are just going to transparently lie and maintain your fake race denial material. Templeton misrepresented the 25% rule and 25% Fst is applied nowhere in biology as a cutoff. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I provided like 6 sources showing biologists use the 25% cut-off, Dave rejected them all as "parroting Templeton", despite at least 2 of the sources don't even reference Templeton - so the 0.25 threshold is commonly known outside of Templeton's research articles. However, its not the only threshold. Some biology use different cut-offs using separate criteria. I was actually being kind to cite the 25% Fst threshold, because there are far more rigorous thresholds using MtDNA with a very high cut-off. The point is biologists use thresholds, they don't just equate populations that show minor/small genetic or phenotype differences to be subspecies. Dave fails to provide a single case of the latter. (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
You're a liar. You quoted Wright saying 25% Fst represented very great diferentiation and all of the others were in the context of human race. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Calling other users retarded[edit]

Stop. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments[edit]

Don't, and your user talk page isn't "yours". Christopher (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I condsider this idiot's indentation failure to be vandalism. Can I do the same to your page? Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if you're actually saying something, not if you're just adding "hi" to prove a point. It's not my page anyway. Christopher (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


Not only does this suggest that you support the hilariously outdated Caucasoid-Mongoloid-Negroid "system", but it's deliberately racist (and bullshit). 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Damn I must have forgotten it was current year and that all ideas from the past are now invalid. What's really unacceptable is your dishonesty and disservice to public knowledge in the service of whatever political agenda you have. Probably the vague concept of "racism" being bad, meaning one can't apply taxonomy to humans and that everyone is equal, and that it's ok to lie constantly and misrepresent science to support that fantasy view. I'm guessing you don't choose to live and work among other races though right? Why not move to Brazil if racial diversity is so great. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Same straw-man. No one who denies race claims "everyone is equal" in terms of population (e.g. see the racialism article on the gene ACTN3) or denies human classification. Do you not get tired of writing the same lies over and over? You set up a comical & false position: someone who denies race according to you is equated to someone who denies population structure/population differences in humans - when no scientist says this. You then set up a fallacy to equate these people as egalitarians or communists, when you don't know anything about their politics. (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you post that link again Ill revoke your talk page access. Christopher (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)