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
retarded
couldnt care less about what is contention between the sides of the political spectrum.
i value science regardless of politics. as do all science-minded people i know. when i started getting into science i was extremely apolitical. being interested in politics came years later
ye but the peeps replying to your "science leans left" shit were talking about the conclusions, me included.
obviously people will do research based on their biases. the scientific process is designed as a self-improving system that continually challenges itself to get the right conclusions regardless of who does the science. thats what people here meant when they say science is supposed to be neutral. and thats correct.
its also obvious that some people give in to their biases to the point where they will actually skew data to get to different conclusions. and then other scientists will expose this shit, because:
or: the issue of social sciences being susceptible to the researchers biases. you lowkey agree then with some of the peeps here saying its basically propaganda if its not reliable like natural sciences.
ye well if you dont even have the appropriate quality and quantity of teachers for your current populace, bringing in more people that require special education (language barrier as an example) is a difficult to impossible task. i also know this from first hand experience
yep, like the glue shit this will make more people either not care or actively be against your cause. sadly
Post automatically merged:
couldnt care less about what is contention between the sides of the political spectrum.
i value science regardless of politics. as do all science-minded people i know. when i started getting into science i was extremely apolitical. being interested in politics came years later
Post automatically merged:
ye but the peeps replying to your "science leans left" shit were talking about the conclusions, me included.
obviously people will do research based on their biases. the scientific process is designed as a self-improving system that continually challenges itself to get the right conclusions regardless of who does the science. thats what people here meant when they say science is supposed to be neutral. and thats correct.
its also obvious that some people give in to their biases to the point where they will actually skew data to get to different conclusions. and then other scientists will expose this shit, because:
Post automatically merged:
or: the issue of social sciences being susceptible to the researchers biases. you lowkey agree then with some of the peeps here saying its basically propaganda if its not reliable like natural sciences.
Post automatically merged:
ye well if you dont even have the appropriate quality and quantity of teachers for your current populace, bringing in more people that require special education (language barrier as an example) is a difficult to impossible task. i also know this from first hand experience
Post automatically merged:
yep, like the glue shit this will make more people either not care or actively be against your cause. sadly
Last edited:
I see. Nothing surprising here.
Nothing surprising here either
Hm, I didn't knew you, but now I do, thanks.
Interesting.. What makes you say that those two women are part of the elite ?
Noted. You are confirming my calculations.
Now this is an interesting reaction :)
And.... Your point of view is noted.
Looking at the way you juggle with problematic values I will say that I'm not surprised.
And its okay.
Well if they want, but that's not what I'm talking about. Science is not only about conclusions.
Only the results can be neutral (and even then then are conditions by the way we think the world and reality), science simply can't and never will be.
Again, if science was really neutral, we would allow scientists to test the H bomb on the entire planet to make researches on its effect on climate with no regards for the lives taken. This is an absolute example to show you that neutrality simply can't exist in science. Neutrality means the absence of morality. It would transform science from an act of progress into something else.
Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:
Again, this is fallacious. The presence of biases doesn't mean that we can't create good science. You are basically denying the scientific process here.
What I say is that to make good science, you need to be careful for biases, not that because biases can exist, you can't make good science.
So the argument "its susceptible to biases therefore its unreliable" is fallacious.
Natural sciences have others biases in the scientific process they must overcome.
No, because the number of childrien originated from direct immigration is peanuts compared to the number of residential children going to school each years. So all we need to do is distribute correctly the population of immigrant (with their accords of course) in different state and you will see almost no differences.
Nothing surprising here either
Hm, I didn't knew you, but now I do, thanks.
Interesting.. What makes you say that those two women are part of the elite ?
Noted. You are confirming my calculations.
Now this is an interesting reaction :)
And.... Your point of view is noted.
Looking at the way you juggle with problematic values I will say that I'm not surprised.
And its okay.
Well if they want, but that's not what I'm talking about. Science is not only about conclusions.
Only the results can be neutral (and even then then are conditions by the way we think the world and reality), science simply can't and never will be.
Again, if science was really neutral, we would allow scientists to test the H bomb on the entire planet to make researches on its effect on climate with no regards for the lives taken. This is an absolute example to show you that neutrality simply can't exist in science. Neutrality means the absence of morality. It would transform science from an act of progress into something else.
Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:
Again, this is fallacious. The presence of biases doesn't mean that we can't create good science. You are basically denying the scientific process here.
What I say is that to make good science, you need to be careful for biases, not that because biases can exist, you can't make good science.
So the argument "its susceptible to biases therefore its unreliable" is fallacious.
Natural sciences have others biases in the scientific process they must overcome.
No, because the number of childrien originated from direct immigration is peanuts compared to the number of residential children going to school each years. So all we need to do is distribute correctly the population of immigrant (with their accords of course) in different state and you will see almost no differences.
4 mins in and i kinda dont care to watch any further.
"if you notice that your work gets supported by nazis, its a good sign you should reconsider the political implications of what you're working on".
who gives a shit about the political implications. that gets me back to the "facts dont care about your feelings" statement. if the evidence points to it, who cares whether nazis support it. surely nazis supported all kinda legit science. that doesnt matter in the slightest. we shouldnt "reconsider" this shit when doing research. the only thing matters is what the evidence points to.
No im not, other peeps here do though, and i was talking about them, not me. pretty rich for someone telling me to read more carefully
not as reliable as natural science =/= its unrealiable.
so yeah you are the one beign fallacious here.
and thats still not my opinion, just outlining the peeps in this thread who are against sociology. *sigh
you cant just put migrant childen in regular classes and expect that to work when they dont even speak the language yet. i experienced first hand how this creates problems for schools and teachers. but well, maybe germany is an extreme example considering how much refugees are taken in here. and depending on what you mean by "other states".
nah thats not the point. it doesnt have anything to do with da vinci or the mona lisa. they just want to generate attention, thinking it will generate more attention if they do this to a famous painting (or monuments like they did in berlin).
oof and his characterization of dawkins statement about eugenics is especially ridiculous and misleading.
"if you notice that your work gets supported by nazis, its a good sign you should reconsider the political implications of what you're working on".
who gives a shit about the political implications. that gets me back to the "facts dont care about your feelings" statement. if the evidence points to it, who cares whether nazis support it. surely nazis supported all kinda legit science. that doesnt matter in the slightest. we shouldnt "reconsider" this shit when doing research. the only thing matters is what the evidence points to.
Post automatically merged:
No im not, other peeps here do though, and i was talking about them, not me. pretty rich for someone telling me to read more carefully
not as reliable as natural science =/= its unrealiable.
so yeah you are the one beign fallacious here.
and thats still not my opinion, just outlining the peeps in this thread who are against sociology. *sigh
Post automatically merged:
you cant just put migrant childen in regular classes and expect that to work when they dont even speak the language yet. i experienced first hand how this creates problems for schools and teachers. but well, maybe germany is an extreme example considering how much refugees are taken in here. and depending on what you mean by "other states".
Post automatically merged:
nah thats not the point. it doesnt have anything to do with da vinci or the mona lisa. they just want to generate attention, thinking it will generate more attention if they do this to a famous painting (or monuments like they did in berlin).
Post automatically merged:
oof and his characterization of dawkins statement about eugenics is especially ridiculous and misleading.
Last edited:
Like imagine paying for a movie you were really hyped for. Say Avengers Endgame. And right when the avengers were about to fight thanos, a bunch of activists walked in front of the stage and started shouting Free Palestine.
There’s a difference between strategic activism, and being annoying in public.
Post automatically merged:
There’s a difference between strategic activism, and being annoying in public.
Well.. that's a logical assertion.
If Nazi consider your work to be worthy of being shared to their sympathizers... you might wanna reconsider or at least recheck what you are working on.
This video precisely demonstrate that this assertion is fallacious. You can't separate values from the scientific process, its impossible.
And if you try to do that.. well.. you will have good chances to be shared by Nazis.
Are you certain about that assertion mate ? Do you think Nazi really care about social sciences or the reality of biology (for example) ? Remember that Nazi claimed to observe scientific proof of the hierarchy in the human "races"... You might wanna reconsider your statement "surely nazis supported all kinda legit science"...
.. i afraid to consider what this statement is making you right now...
I read what you are saying mate, that's precisely the problem.
Its the same reliability. There is no hierarchization between scientific disciplines when clear results and conclusions are being reviewed and published. Your statement is anti scientific.
There are solutions and measures for that don't worry:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/unaccompanied-children-2.pdf
What kind of problem ?
Is there an impossibility to pass on knowledge and education ? If that's the case there might be indeed a problem of structure. But the language barrier will never be the reason for it. There are always others political and more structural reasons.
Funnily enough, I think Leonardo - as open minded as he was - would have approved those kind of actions and even helped them in some ways.. I'm sure he would have been the kind of man to understand the issue and create a beautiful painting just for the sake of it being spashed by paint or soup. After all, what is art if not disruption ?
Sure..
Because there is no other evidences of Dawkins strangely following those kind of ideologies...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/richard-dawkins-downs-syndrome-disability-b1848956.html
Let me rephrase that :
Priviledged people were unable to see the work of one of the biggest disruptor this planet has ever carried and were "forced" to see "a disruptive act of activism" by two women trying to bring attention on the fact that 1 out of 3 french skip meal because of poverty and that farmers are dying while working..
But keep thinking that this is a "vanity display"
:cheers:
Well, I would walk on the stage and scream with them or at least applaud them of course ! Why missing an occasion to make people understand that a literal genocide is happening ?
The avengers waited 5 years, they can wait one more day don't worry.
Those are the same things. There is no activism if its not annoying.
The purpose is to break the status co and the inaction. Breaking those things is always annoying.. what are you talking about mate ?
Indeed
Yes they did. Unless you are talking about this one:
(but I don't think it was a leftist militant act
)
If Nazi consider your work to be worthy of being shared to their sympathizers... you might wanna reconsider or at least recheck what you are working on.
This video precisely demonstrate that this assertion is fallacious. You can't separate values from the scientific process, its impossible.
And if you try to do that.. well.. you will have good chances to be shared by Nazis.
Are you certain about that assertion mate ? Do you think Nazi really care about social sciences or the reality of biology (for example) ? Remember that Nazi claimed to observe scientific proof of the hierarchy in the human "races"... You might wanna reconsider your statement "surely nazis supported all kinda legit science"...
.. i afraid to consider what this statement is making you right now...
I read what you are saying mate, that's precisely the problem.
Its the same reliability. There is no hierarchization between scientific disciplines when clear results and conclusions are being reviewed and published. Your statement is anti scientific.
There are solutions and measures for that don't worry:
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/unaccompanied-children-2.pdf
What kind of problem ?
Is there an impossibility to pass on knowledge and education ? If that's the case there might be indeed a problem of structure. But the language barrier will never be the reason for it. There are always others political and more structural reasons.
Funnily enough, I think Leonardo - as open minded as he was - would have approved those kind of actions and even helped them in some ways.. I'm sure he would have been the kind of man to understand the issue and create a beautiful painting just for the sake of it being spashed by paint or soup. After all, what is art if not disruption ?
Sure..
Because there is no other evidences of Dawkins strangely following those kind of ideologies...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/richard-dawkins-downs-syndrome-disability-b1848956.html
Let me rephrase that :
Priviledged people were unable to see the work of one of the biggest disruptor this planet has ever carried and were "forced" to see "a disruptive act of activism" by two women trying to bring attention on the fact that 1 out of 3 french skip meal because of poverty and that farmers are dying while working..
But keep thinking that this is a "vanity display"
:cheers:
Well, I would walk on the stage and scream with them or at least applaud them of course ! Why missing an occasion to make people understand that a literal genocide is happening ?
The avengers waited 5 years, they can wait one more day don't worry.
Those are the same things. There is no activism if its not annoying.
The purpose is to break the status co and the inaction. Breaking those things is always annoying.. what are you talking about mate ?
Indeed
Yes they did. Unless you are talking about this one:
(but I don't think it was a leftist militant act
)
Science is not leftist, its leftism that is scientific.
Science doesn't negate leftism as leftism is just following scientific conclusions... with progressist values on top.
ok so if science follows an idealogy
then it literally only has a value insofar as you personally like that idealogy if my stance being progressive values are wrong
and im to prefer y idealogy over yours then objectively speaking anti science really has as much value as pro science or vice versa afterall it's just a idealogy