Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
there are finite number of job openings and finite number of businnesses
you cant give every single person
a job, it's just not possible
and what person would suggest it's bad to help american black people and women
id entirely be opposed if it was helping rich women or rich black people but only cause more lower class black people and women need the help more and cause fuck rich people
I haven't seen that much reaching in quite a while here, congratulations
Take this @Ravagerblade !! You're never gonna surpass Bobby
Take this @Ravagerblade !! You're never gonna surpass Bobby
illegal, not legally allowed
so in this context. it's saying get legal citizenship as opposed to just running over the border undocumented
and immigrant is literally any person not born in the country
my grand parents are both immigrants from the US
my great grandfather was is a german immigrant who moved to the US at a later age
It is. Please
Any scientist epistemologist will confirm you that the science process inherently comes with biases. You cannot escape it. Simply because this is a human action and we are full of biases.
I already proved you guys in late december with clear researched papers that there was sexist bias in the science process and science access. You choosed to ignore that. But I'm someone that doesn't give up, so here is another article from a completely different field of science explaining why bias in science is still a thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761670/
Doing science =/= creating objectivity. Science is simply a discipline created to understand our reality better, its not perfect... Simply because we are not perfect.
Damn, you really are lost if you think that Donald Trump is against the status quo and against the removal of his priviledges...
Science care.
And you are disregarding it.
Then you are anti science. Simple as that.
Wrong.
Science means "the additions of knowledges". Its a discipline that consist in creating knowledges, organizing them and make testable results.
Indeed, you just need to be educated on astronomy. Which is only one discipline of Science.
To understand what I'm talking about, you need to be educated on social sciences another fields of scientific discipline. And right now, you are not.
When you live in cities where you can barely buy food and water and when you or your children risk to be killed, executed or kidnapped everyday... maybe you might wanna consider moving... even illegally if you have no choice.
With that kind of ignorant behavior, don't expect someone to welcome you one day if you have no other choices but to cross a border illegally for you and your family to survive a crisis.
I don't seem, maybe, but I am. And you would be wise to consider listening to me when I talk about colonialism, racism and progressive issues.
Everyday. I did not wait for you.
Now, you still haven't replied to me: What are you considering "racist stereotype"s in the populations of the Shandians and the Torino Kingdom ?
I'm going to simplify the issue, illegal immigrants are illegal. They are breaking the law to get into the country, so why then should the law apply to someone who is 1, not a citizen and 2, disregarding the law of the country to begin with?
I understand the humanitarian aspect of the argument, but the fact of the matter is there are many bad apples exploiting the fact the borders are so lax.
In the end of the day the priority should be the citizens and those who come respecting the law entering legally.
And when the ordinary man is being jeopardised by the lax immigration, then something has to be done about it. And when the highest order of law isn't going to do anything about it, then it's the people who will, and at that point anything goes because they're at wit's end.
[automerge]1706320579[/automerge]
Yes, you have a bias when doing science because you are trying to prove a concept. However the concept is based on preexisting knowledge, and as you say trying to expand that knowledge will require to theorise about why certain things works the way they do.
But the results of research should and will always be neutral, it's not any political aspect about it.
And when one scientist/ group of scientist has gotten a result, many other independent groups of scientists will try to recreate the result to confirm or deny the credibility of the findings.
So while you are technically right that some assumptions has to be made in order to try to prove something, the science itself is completely neutral.
I understand the humanitarian aspect of the argument, but the fact of the matter is there are many bad apples exploiting the fact the borders are so lax.
In the end of the day the priority should be the citizens and those who come respecting the law entering legally.
And when the ordinary man is being jeopardised by the lax immigration, then something has to be done about it. And when the highest order of law isn't going to do anything about it, then it's the people who will, and at that point anything goes because they're at wit's end.
[automerge]1706320579[/automerge]
That's how it works mates.
Any scientist epistemologist will confirm you that the science process inherently comes with biases. You cannot escape it. Simply because this is a human action and we are full of biases.
Any scientist epistemologist will confirm you that the science process inherently comes with biases. You cannot escape it. Simply because this is a human action and we are full of biases.
But the results of research should and will always be neutral, it's not any political aspect about it.
And when one scientist/ group of scientist has gotten a result, many other independent groups of scientists will try to recreate the result to confirm or deny the credibility of the findings.
So while you are technically right that some assumptions has to be made in order to try to prove something, the science itself is completely neutral.
Last edited: