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
Yeah thats not whats happening. But have fun with your fanfiction
Uhm yes it is, because eugenics is about heritable traits.
Thats not the only factor to his opinion, but sure.
And i disagree with that. But thats still not eugenics xD
Nah, a statement stands regardless of who is saying it. Thats why attacking the character of a person in response is a fallacy.
And your attack was retarded on top of it.
I guess you arent willing to respond to my points or questions. . .
Yes obviously the theory is =/= the phenomenon.
But you still seemingly missed the part of scientific theories being repeatadly confirmed. A scientific theory is as good as it gets. And before you bring up scientific laws, there is a law and a theory of gravity. Laws arent above theories in hierarchy.
There is no need to "believe" evidence. But if by "logical evidence" you mean philosophical mumbojumbo, then yeah thats not evidence in scientific context. There is zero evidence for creationism. Creationists really just do personal incredulity on evolution.
And since i think this is where this is going:
Humans are great apes, primates, mammals and chordates
I guess i managed without adhom
I think he is trying to get at evolution being a thing, but the theory not being perfect.
Or he is trying to get at ridiculous macro/micro evolution nonsense.
Post automatically merged:
Uhm yes it is, because eugenics is about heritable traits.
Post automatically merged:
Thats not the only factor to his opinion, but sure.
And i disagree with that. But thats still not eugenics xD
Post automatically merged:
Nah, a statement stands regardless of who is saying it. Thats why attacking the character of a person in response is a fallacy.
And your attack was retarded on top of it.
Post automatically merged:
I guess you arent willing to respond to my points or questions. . .
Yes obviously the theory is =/= the phenomenon.
But you still seemingly missed the part of scientific theories being repeatadly confirmed. A scientific theory is as good as it gets. And before you bring up scientific laws, there is a law and a theory of gravity. Laws arent above theories in hierarchy.
There is no need to "believe" evidence. But if by "logical evidence" you mean philosophical mumbojumbo, then yeah thats not evidence in scientific context. There is zero evidence for creationism. Creationists really just do personal incredulity on evolution.
And since i think this is where this is going:
Humans are great apes, primates, mammals and chordates
I guess i managed without adhom
Post automatically merged:
Oh, we're back with the pseudointellectual speech with lots of Latin & Greek words
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
You can debate and attempt exegesis all you want, evolution won't go away my bunny. You said alot of nothing in that post.
Or he is trying to get at ridiculous macro/micro evolution nonsense.
Last edited:
We're already getting to a rough start with your arrogance, wanting answers to tangential quesitons without really addressing the comment you replied to. Humble yourself , if you wanna move along with this discussion.. Its either we respect each other or we don't talk at all.
So yes the phenomenon observed isn't equivalent to a theory nice.. So Lolsis is logically incorrect @Bisoromi Bear remember this and don't embarrass yourself like that again.
Moving on
I didn't miss any part matter the fact my comment had nothing to do with anything you stated.. Whether or not I hold your opinion or subscribe to my own on the matter you just raised has nothing to with the logical fallacy Lolsis fell into by conflating rejection with theory to rejection observable phenomenon.
So don't jump the gas pedal we can take this slowly and comprehensively
Now this has become a completely different discussion. I don't get why you're assuming that i don't know that theories are tested, assessed, backed by observable evidence , and rectified. I know scientific theories is as good as it gets in science given the amount of data present to provide the best possible explanations given that limited evidnece at hand. Are you saying that these theories represent absolute truth of the reality?
Why are you assuming there needs to be a scientific evidence for everything..and it isn't the universal standard for evidnece
That's isn't the only form of evidnece
There are various types.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advic...ng and,make conclusions with logical evidence.
So yes the phenomenon observed isn't equivalent to a theory nice.. So Lolsis is logically incorrect @Bisoromi Bear remember this and don't embarrass yourself like that again.
Moving on
I didn't miss any part matter the fact my comment had nothing to do with anything you stated.. Whether or not I hold your opinion or subscribe to my own on the matter you just raised has nothing to with the logical fallacy Lolsis fell into by conflating rejection with theory to rejection observable phenomenon.
So don't jump the gas pedal we can take this slowly and comprehensively
Now this has become a completely different discussion. I don't get why you're assuming that i don't know that theories are tested, assessed, backed by observable evidence , and rectified. I know scientific theories is as good as it gets in science given the amount of data present to provide the best possible explanations given that limited evidnece at hand. Are you saying that these theories represent absolute truth of the reality?
Post automatically merged:
Why are you assuming there needs to be a scientific evidence for everything..and it isn't the universal standard for evidnece
That's isn't the only form of evidnece
There are various types.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advic...ng and,make conclusions with logical evidence.
not like he actually said that though.
and you stated "attempted explanation". that kinda does sound like you are missing the part of it being confirmed, repeatedly.
what opinion? i was just outlining what a scientific theory is. there was no opinion involved
this is why i assumed that:
i bolded the juicy parts
fair enough to an extent, this is highly dependent on the premises though.
well if someone makes extraordinary claims about a supernatural being, ye i need actual tangible empirical evidence if you dont want me to go hitchens razor on you and refer to the sagan standard
and you stated "attempted explanation". that kinda does sound like you are missing the part of it being confirmed, repeatedly.
Post automatically merged:
what opinion? i was just outlining what a scientific theory is. there was no opinion involved
Post automatically merged:
this is why i assumed that:
i bolded the juicy parts
Post automatically merged:
fair enough to an extent, this is highly dependent on the premises though.
Post automatically merged:
well if someone makes extraordinary claims about a supernatural being, ye i need actual tangible empirical evidence if you dont want me to go hitchens razor on you and refer to the sagan standard
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/MichaelGLFlood?.../general-political-discussion.37255/page-1637
''Men have a vital role to play in ending sexist inequalities and building gender justice. Profeminist website XY includes a massive collection of resources: guides to the personal and political work involved, talks, curricula, challenges, research, etc'' - micheal
the guy your citing is a femminist himself, he has active motive to lie
he's a biased source.
I was laughing at the other guy's statement claiming that believing in evolution is logically incorrect. Hence the 
emotes
emotes
Post automatically merged:
the guy isnt the one doing the research, he is just linking the research?!
Last edited:
I've seen enough of his posts in the past to know what he means
Not the point. That was not their role. It will take at least a year to decide if Israel created a genocide or not. Its demands an inquiry.
No act of genocide, meaning, no more killing indiscriminately. Israel can continue chasing hamas but if their actions keep killing Palestinians without reasons, those will be considered as an act of genocide.
This was a warning.
I'm literally describing you what negative eugenism and this description is similar to the vision depicted by Dawkins. You are just in front of a wall.. You are not right, but you don't want to be wrong. So you will try to deligimate my vision rather than my word. But sorry, this won't work with me.
You only option with me is to come clean and for once, accept that you are wrong. At least on this subject.
Eugenism is a set of beliefs and practice. It means to improve the genetic material of human through positive and negative selections. Selection through heritable traits is just one of the option. I already explained you the difference between negative and positive eugenism already. Now, either you start listening, or you stop talking about this subject you don't understand.
No, not really no. If you want an exemple, I tend to favor for example the words of scientists more that yours. Even when you guys were to say the same things.
By listening to anyone, you will only listen to yourself.
Dawkins might be trustable in pure biological subjects (even tho that is debatable), he is not when we talks about politics and subject related to morality. Therefore I stand by the attack or rather the prevention against his vision and the vision of the "new atheist movement".
If you allow yourself to listen to anyone just because they said one day something true, you will end up in a cult in no time.
You also forgot to read his bio. The man is a researcher, meaning a scientist. Because a scientists have political ideas doesn't mean that they can't create good scientific work. And its not even his work (I think)
, he only shares a study.
Again, you are showing your complete ignorance of the scientific process and showing exactly why what I said about the relationship between science and values previously was so important.
Plus this is not a sociological study, but a psychological peer reviewed one.. but I guess that you don't consider psychology as a science either.
You are the caricature of the antiscience guy mate, the perfect clone of a flat earther but against social sciences, its really sad...
Why does it matter, are scientist not allowed to be feminist now ? You prefer them to be incels like you ?
No act of genocide, meaning, no more killing indiscriminately. Israel can continue chasing hamas but if their actions keep killing Palestinians without reasons, those will be considered as an act of genocide.
This was a warning.
I'm literally describing you what negative eugenism and this description is similar to the vision depicted by Dawkins. You are just in front of a wall.. You are not right, but you don't want to be wrong. So you will try to deligimate my vision rather than my word. But sorry, this won't work with me.
You only option with me is to come clean and for once, accept that you are wrong. At least on this subject.
Eugenism is a set of beliefs and practice. It means to improve the genetic material of human through positive and negative selections. Selection through heritable traits is just one of the option. I already explained you the difference between negative and positive eugenism already. Now, either you start listening, or you stop talking about this subject you don't understand.
No, not really no. If you want an exemple, I tend to favor for example the words of scientists more that yours. Even when you guys were to say the same things.
By listening to anyone, you will only listen to yourself.
Dawkins might be trustable in pure biological subjects (even tho that is debatable), he is not when we talks about politics and subject related to morality. Therefore I stand by the attack or rather the prevention against his vision and the vision of the "new atheist movement".
If you allow yourself to listen to anyone just because they said one day something true, you will end up in a cult in no time.
You also forgot to read his bio. The man is a researcher, meaning a scientist. Because a scientists have political ideas doesn't mean that they can't create good scientific work. And its not even his work (I think)
, he only shares a study.
Again, you are showing your complete ignorance of the scientific process and showing exactly why what I said about the relationship between science and values previously was so important.
Plus this is not a sociological study, but a psychological peer reviewed one.. but I guess that you don't consider psychology as a science either.
You are the caricature of the antiscience guy mate, the perfect clone of a flat earther but against social sciences, its really sad...
Why does it matter, are scientist not allowed to be feminist now ? You prefer them to be incels like you ?