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
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 ?
Not that it matters he said.. It was a obvious quesiton with an either /or choice.. He dodged it so it was clear to me that he's gonna assume what i don't subscribe to..he's just that kinda dude
And confirmed? Are you saying the theory in quesiton explains Evolution in the best way possible given the current presented evidnece? In that sense yes its the most reliable working modle given how expounded upon it is but let's not assume its absolutely certain and is expected form science's flaws here here like NEW DATA, GENERALIZATIONS, FLAWED MECHANISMS, and reasonable objections which include, fundamental assumptions no matter Micro or Macro perspective, with which even tho the theory makes for a compelling lense to look at biological evolution of life on earth, its still limited by its constraints and keeps evolving, changing and rectifying, but it isn't the only lense to look at it from which is what science is about.. Its not about ascertaining Absolute truths especially not with limited evidnece give the lost biological blueprint of life on earth in Evolutionary theorie's case. There is a reason why fact in science is defined as the nearest most compelling explanation OF THE GIVEN DATA. So if by confirmed you mean its proven to be absolutely true, then that would contradict science itself unless you just mean the best working model.. Which i don't have a problem with and no one should.
I mean.. There's not 1 kind of theory for even evolution I don't seem to understand your interpretation here. Yes you cannot force it down someone's throat because you believe in something so what does that have to do with what you're alluding to here which is misunderstanding what scientific theory is composed of.. Which is still an attempt at explaining something in the most sensible manner with given facts way but never claiming to be absolutely true.You can reject theories and you can adhere to others..don't see why that's an issue.
How about logical evidnece rooted in reality? That is mathematically, logically, and universally consistent
Brilliant point, there things that are intangible but can be observed indirectly through affect.. Like Dark energy.
Us creationist don't reject evolution (the observable biological chnage) we reject what we don't believe complied with objective standards, we just posit the reality that there is an unmovaed mover and this universe is a an observable affect of its existence.
And confirmed? Are you saying the theory in quesiton explains Evolution in the best way possible given the current presented evidnece? In that sense yes its the most reliable working modle given how expounded upon it is but let's not assume its absolutely certain and is expected form science's flaws here here like NEW DATA, GENERALIZATIONS, FLAWED MECHANISMS, and reasonable objections which include, fundamental assumptions no matter Micro or Macro perspective, with which even tho the theory makes for a compelling lense to look at biological evolution of life on earth, its still limited by its constraints and keeps evolving, changing and rectifying, but it isn't the only lense to look at it from which is what science is about.. Its not about ascertaining Absolute truths especially not with limited evidnece give the lost biological blueprint of life on earth in Evolutionary theorie's case. There is a reason why fact in science is defined as the nearest most compelling explanation OF THE GIVEN DATA. So if by confirmed you mean its proven to be absolutely true, then that would contradict science itself unless you just mean the best working model.. Which i don't have a problem with and no one should.
I mean.. There's not 1 kind of theory for even evolution I don't seem to understand your interpretation here. Yes you cannot force it down someone's throat because you believe in something so what does that have to do with what you're alluding to here which is misunderstanding what scientific theory is composed of.. Which is still an attempt at explaining something in the most sensible manner with given facts way but never claiming to be absolutely true.You can reject theories and you can adhere to others..don't see why that's an issue.
Post automatically merged:
How about logical evidnece rooted in reality? That is mathematically, logically, and universally consistent
Post automatically merged:
Brilliant point, there things that are intangible but can be observed indirectly through affect.. Like Dark energy.
Us creationist don't reject evolution (the observable biological chnage) we reject what we don't believe complied with objective standards, we just posit the reality that there is an unmovaed mover and this universe is a an observable affect of its existence.
Last edited:
I've seen enough of his posts in the past to know what he means
Post automatically merged:
Bunch of researchers actually
Post automatically merged:
Flawed in what way? That we dont know every detail about the evolution of every trait there is?
Post automatically merged:
Yes really
Post automatically merged:
Well if he is getting at humans not being primates (the usual go-to for theists when it comes to evolution), then he is and thats still the same level of reality denial as being a flat earther.
Post automatically merged:
So you did miss that part in the definition of scientific theory after all. . .
Post automatically merged:
Well obviously the best explanation based on the evidence so far may change to be even better with new evidence coming in.
No evidence will change humans being primates though.
Post automatically merged:
So what is it that you reject?
I think its time for you to actually respond to my points and questions
Post automatically merged:
There is no such evidence for a supernatural being or creationism.
And even if there was, that wouldnt point to a single religion (much less a single denomination of a religion), so at best you'd argue for deism.
Post automatically merged:
So you ultimately reject evolution but just try to sugarcoat it, got it.
Post automatically merged:
Doesnt have anything to do with evolution btw.
You can believe in the unmoved mover without rejecting repeatedly confirmed science.
Didnt you even make a point about religious scientists earlier lmao?
Post automatically merged:
And as i mentioned earlier, i have seen a reinterpretation of the adam and eve story to be indicative of evolution. Being religious and accepting evolution are not mutually exclusive
Last edited:
Well, I'm a girl boss and that is how I know the ideas of the movement have become ridiculous. I make my own money, raise my kids, I purchased my own home ect etc. Because no one told me I was held back or couldn't do it. So I did it.
Which is my biggest problem with most movements. People telling people they can't do this or that because of trivial matters. I remember my son coming home with a bad grade in math a couple of years ago. When I took his phone away this kid replied to me. "Mom, I'm black. I'm not supposed to do good in math."
I will say this he brought his math grade up.
Post automatically merged:
Which is my biggest problem with most movements. People telling people they can't do this or that because of trivial matters. I remember my son coming home with a bad grade in math a couple of years ago. When I took his phone away this kid replied to me. "Mom, I'm black. I'm not supposed to do good in math."
I will say this he brought his math grade up.