Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli 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 weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I'm just warning you to be careful.
Because while you are an anarchist now. Without a strong materialist basic, you risk to create a "stargate" toward less beneficial beliefs system on the far right.
I will take the example of those two women:
Who, in the past, fought with the femen. A feminist movement of the liberation of women. You could have categorize them in the left.
BUT
Their fight lacked a lot of sociological and materialistic basis, render their struggle individualist. Their radicalization was not based on knowledge but anger and so.. in the glimps of a few years, they radicalized to the far right and are now defending racist theories such as the great replacement and transphobic rethorics and people.
So be careful of that. Because those are stargates between the left and the far right that can be without return.
Yes it is. Radical leftism (and I mean the level where I am) require a surface level knowledge that you can't just assimilate in one night.
Because while you are an anarchist now. Without a strong materialist basic, you risk to create a "stargate" toward less beneficial beliefs system on the far right.
I will take the example of those two women:
Who, in the past, fought with the femen. A feminist movement of the liberation of women. You could have categorize them in the left.
BUT
Their fight lacked a lot of sociological and materialistic basis, render their struggle individualist. Their radicalization was not based on knowledge but anger and so.. in the glimps of a few years, they radicalized to the far right and are now defending racist theories such as the great replacement and transphobic rethorics and people.
So be careful of that. Because those are stargates between the left and the far right that can be without return.
Yes it is. Radical leftism (and I mean the level where I am) require a surface level knowledge that you can't just assimilate in one night.
Yeah, me I don't believe that evolution is real whether I am a theist or an atheist, but, and I say this not having looked at what theistic evolution says, I think evolution would disprove christianity
Yeah, I say materialist as in believing that everything is material,
Post automatically merged:
I'm just warning you to be careful.
Because while you are an anarchist now. Without a strong materialist basic, you risk to create a "stargate" toward less beneficial beliefs system on the far right.
I will take the example of those two women:
Who, in the past, fought with the femen. A feminist movement of the liberation of women. You could have categorize them in the left.
BUT
Their fight lacked a lot of sociological and materialistic basis, render their struggle individualist. Their radicalization was not based on knowledge but anger and so.. in the glimps of a few years, they radicalized to the far right and are now defending racist theories such as the great replacement and transphobic rethorics and people.
So be careful of that. Because those are stargates between the left and the far right that can be without return.
Yes it is. Radical leftism (and I mean the level where I am) require a surface level knowledge that you can't just assimilate in one night.
Because while you are an anarchist now. Without a strong materialist basic, you risk to create a "stargate" toward less beneficial beliefs system on the far right.
I will take the example of those two women:
Who, in the past, fought with the femen. A feminist movement of the liberation of women. You could have categorize them in the left.
BUT
Their fight lacked a lot of sociological and materialistic basis, render their struggle individualist. Their radicalization was not based on knowledge but anger and so.. in the glimps of a few years, they radicalized to the far right and are now defending racist theories such as the great replacement and transphobic rethorics and people.
So be careful of that. Because those are stargates between the left and the far right that can be without return.
Yes it is. Radical leftism (and I mean the level where I am) require a surface level knowledge that you can't just assimilate in one night.
Can blame no one but himself
Where's the contradiction in a criminal regretting their actions, and interiorly willing themselves to do better from now on, all in one night?
You already admitted people can change their opinions on the basis of emotion, or appealing to an authority. You keep bringing up the bare minimum reading needed to become a radical leftist but I didn't know criminals were criminals based on a great depth of understanding after lots of studying lmao
You already admitted people can change their opinions on the basis of emotion, or appealing to an authority. You keep bringing up the bare minimum reading needed to become a radical leftist but I didn't know criminals were criminals based on a great depth of understanding after lots of studying lmao
Last edited:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory seeks to explain "why" or "how", whereas a fact is a simple, basic observation and a law is an empirical description of a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[3] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[4]
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[5][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[5] whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2]
A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory seeks to explain "why" or "how", whereas a fact is a simple, basic observation and a law is an empirical description of a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[3] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."[4]
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[5][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[5] whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2]
I just said I don't deny evolution, I don't blindly affirm it either. I haven't looked into the reasoning for it
To tell you a bit about myself, I am an ideological technocrat and STEM major; I am pro science. I don't think dogmatically affirming something like a theory is scientific when science by it's nature changes as data changes.
To tell you a bit about myself, I am an ideological technocrat and STEM major; I am pro science. I don't think dogmatically affirming something like a theory is scientific when science by it's nature changes as data changes.
Hmm, interesting.
Anyways, I think Christians are normally against that, but fuck.
Now for some reason I thought of Jesus as a Stand. Haha
Anyways fuck reddit, even though I use it, but to much cancerous, leftists on there. And Mods will ban you and subreddits that don't adhere to their stances only.
Anyways, I think Christians are normally against that, but fuck.
Now for some reason I thought of Jesus as a Stand. Haha
Post automatically merged:
Anyways fuck reddit, even though I use it, but to much cancerous, leftists on there. And Mods will ban you and subreddits that don't adhere to their stances only.