Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you 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.
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.
Post automatically merged:
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:
i said he's as anti status quo as rich billionaire can get
how is he the status quo if the status quo removed his priviledges
status quo agasint status quo??
and cnn hated on him for years as did the entire democratic party
are democrats not status quo?
so you suggest it's both objective knoweldge and it's also not
can you stay consistent for a single fucking second
you said it's biased and not objective
why should we take it seriously when even by your own quotes
it's pretty much proganda
Post automatically merged:
social science is leftist proganda
and im to reject it along with every other goverment instuition
news media
laws and legal system
and academia
all of it is a sham
Last edited:
If you want to play this game I’m fine with it, insult me as much as you want. But don’t go after my family you virgin friendless loser. If anybody has cocaine all their way up his ass is you, you little wanna be favela gangster. Even if my parents were illegals, at least I can take solace in the fact that they love me, not like you, you unwanted fuck.
go fuel somebody else’s racist fantasies at least, that guy 100% looks down on you and what you are.
go fuel somebody else’s racist fantasies at least, that guy 100% looks down on you and what you are.
Last edited:
Obviously no, you don't.
Not because you are trying to prove a concept, because you are human and humans have natural and social biases.
It will never be. Even with the current scientific process. The act of researching more knowledge is by essence a moral act toward progress. The act of doing science will therefore NEVER be neutral. Neutrality in science simply can't exist.
And the process of peer review doesn't change that. Its simple logic. The maximum potential of a group can't exceed the potential of the best element of the group. Add that the fact that all human have natural and social biases and you end up with a discipline that can only minimize biases that we are able to minimize ourselves. And minimalizing biases is something that is extremelly hard to do.
Therefore we are doomned to see resurface biases not only in researches but also in the scientific process as well.
When a billionnaires do everything, even use the system to keep their status and fortune, they are the EMBODIEMENT of status co my guy.
You have everything backward. Its not because Donald Trump say that he is anti-system and anti woke that he is really against this system. In reality he isn't. He uses EACH inch of the system to do unethical things without being accounted for, he uses the system to promote his propaganda (yes, Fox news and social medias are part of the system mate), he uses the system to prevent himself from going to jail because of rape and sexual assault... Etc..
He is literally one of the billionnaire that promote capitalism and neoliberalism the MOST.
He IS the system. Its because of the system that he was elected in the first place mate.
The fact that progressist liberal and progressive media are going against a far right lunatic like him is just normal and ethical, its not the status co dude.
No. Reread what I said.
Can you learn to read please mate ?
The scientific process is the best methodology we have to understand our world so all scientific process must be taken seriously.
Now, Science being bias doesn't mean that it can't produce objective results. It just means that we need to be very careful about the science we are creating because biases can exist.
It doesn't negate the quality of science. It only reminds us that it is not a divine but only a human method.
Nop. It just happen that social sciences creates results that are leaning toward progressism and therefore that can be used by the left side of the political spectrum.
You can deny the legitimacy of this scientific discipline all you want, but it will make you an anti science guy.
Your choice.
Then you can now call yourself "the anti science guy".
Sorry.
Not because you are trying to prove a concept, because you are human and humans have natural and social biases.
It will never be. Even with the current scientific process. The act of researching more knowledge is by essence a moral act toward progress. The act of doing science will therefore NEVER be neutral. Neutrality in science simply can't exist.
And the process of peer review doesn't change that. Its simple logic. The maximum potential of a group can't exceed the potential of the best element of the group. Add that the fact that all human have natural and social biases and you end up with a discipline that can only minimize biases that we are able to minimize ourselves. And minimalizing biases is something that is extremelly hard to do.
Therefore we are doomned to see resurface biases not only in researches but also in the scientific process as well.
When a billionnaires do everything, even use the system to keep their status and fortune, they are the EMBODIEMENT of status co my guy.
You have everything backward. Its not because Donald Trump say that he is anti-system and anti woke that he is really against this system. In reality he isn't. He uses EACH inch of the system to do unethical things without being accounted for, he uses the system to promote his propaganda (yes, Fox news and social medias are part of the system mate), he uses the system to prevent himself from going to jail because of rape and sexual assault... Etc..
He is literally one of the billionnaire that promote capitalism and neoliberalism the MOST.
He IS the system. Its because of the system that he was elected in the first place mate.
The fact that progressist liberal and progressive media are going against a far right lunatic like him is just normal and ethical, its not the status co dude.
No. Reread what I said.
Can you learn to read please mate ?
The scientific process is the best methodology we have to understand our world so all scientific process must be taken seriously.
Now, Science being bias doesn't mean that it can't produce objective results. It just means that we need to be very careful about the science we are creating because biases can exist.
It doesn't negate the quality of science. It only reminds us that it is not a divine but only a human method.
Nop. It just happen that social sciences creates results that are leaning toward progressism and therefore that can be used by the left side of the political spectrum.
You can deny the legitimacy of this scientific discipline all you want, but it will make you an anti science guy.
Your choice.
Then you can now call yourself "the anti science guy".
Sorry.