Proof Positive That The NY Times Is Run By A Bunch Of Dum-Dums [CBD]

The link is real. It's not a clever spoof. Although it is hard to believe that even the employees of the gray Lady are this stupid.

But there were downsides, too. Occasionally, the smoke burned their eyes and seared their lungs. Their food was likely coated with char, which might have increased their risk for certain cancers. With everyone congregated in one place, diseases could have been transmitted more easily.

Much research has focused on how fire gave an evolutionary advantage to early humans. Less examined are the negative byproducts that came with fire, and the ways in which humans may or may not have adapted to them. In other words, how did the harmful effects of fire shape our evolution?

Where to start....

How about; The taming of fire began the process of creating civilization. There is nothing....NOTHING bad about its use.

The smoke burned their eyes? So they moved away from the smoke, like any three-year-old knows.

It seared their lungs? Really? How do you know? Ever go camping or hang around a bonfire? Oh...of course not. They don't do that stuff on the Upper West Side and at Brown. But normal people (and probably every animal on earth) know not to stand really close to the fire and breath in the hot smoke and air.

It covered their food in char? Huzzah! Good for them. That's called flavor you dolts. Many of us are going to emulate our ancestors this very weekend and char some red meat!

And here is the big one: It causes cancer. Fine. I'll take it. Every accomplishment of modern man can be traced to fire, directly or indirectly, so suggesting that it is a bad thing because of cancer is moronic in the extreme. Many of us wouldn't be alive long enough, or would never have been born to get cancer if we didn't have fire, so it's a silly point.

The flaccid logic of pretty much everyone involved in this mass of sophomoric idiocy is embarrassing. There are so many logical flaws that it's difficult to imagine that the writers and editors weren't just standing around some office on a rainy Friday afternoon, getting high and tossing around ideas for the stupidest articles they could imagine.

This one makes me deeply suspicious:

With mathematical modeling, Rebecca Chisholm and Mark Tanaka, biologists at the University of New South Wales in Australia, simulated how ancient soil bacteria might have evolved to become infectious tuberculosis agents. Without fire, the probability was low. But when the researchers added fire to their model, the likelihood that tuberculosis would emerge jumped by several degrees of magnitude.

Huh? So you modeled the rate of mutation, added some additional inputs like an easier pathway for communicability, and arrived at infectious tuberculosis. Okay. This is the same shitty thinking that gives us headlines like "GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES ZIKA!"

The ulterior motive for this and other, similar articles is simple; the NYT and other leftist rags enjoy sticking their thumbs in the eye of Western civilization.

In hindsight I shouldn't have included a link. The NY Times is a click-whoring organization....elegant, but they still prostitute themselves.

posted by Open Blogger at 01:50 PM

| Access Comments