MangoSenpai

Argonauts, roll out!
Now, I replied to those. But you will need to understand that those assertion are completely fallacious.

People are not demanding to help the poor and those in difficulty since yersteday. Let's not forget that fact mate.
Explain to me then why there is a housing crisis.
Why are schools being shut down just to house immigrants happening
why aren’t you housing immigrants yourself, why don’t you let them live with you and share your wealth and food with them

And let me introduce you to a seemingly foreign concept; supply and demand
So because I'm trying to help the cause of immigrant, I'm suddenly "superior" to immigrant ?

Are you sure you are thinking straight here ?

:choppawhat:
You’re not helping anyone, you’re living in a bubble. You take the moral high ground acting as if your country and Europe is perfect so we as superior people should take pity on these helpless poor immigrant.
You ignore the blatant issues that is already present and you want to bring even more people in when even by your own admission is not getting the essentials that they need.
You can’t bring in that many people non stop, it just doesn’t work that way, there will be shortages. There won’t be enough police to regulate crime. There won’t be enough jobs for everyone. The gap between rich and poor will only grow. There will be more unrest. Things will get unstable. Gang violence, drugs and other organised crime will rise.

You are actively ruining for everyone, yourself and the immigrants.
Oh, but forgive me, you probably live in a wealthy state that doesn’t actually get the immigrants so you’re talking about issues you have no real life connection to. You’re shielded from the issues, so you’re projecting your moral superiority on people because you’re living such an uneventful sheltered life.

I am not interested in arguing further with you because you don’t understand, and will never understand unless you suddenly one day become a victim yourself, how the world works in practice and not how things are ideally supposed to be according to paper.

I am sad to inform you that the real world is not perfect, there are innumerable variables to consider, some are more controllable than others.
People may get sick, there could be natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes etc.
There could be production errors, mismanagement, accidents, and the list goes on.

You are not grounded in reality.
Post automatically merged:

Oh and one last thing @Logiko
Your ideologies are actively excusing immigrants from crime. Public figures, politicians and even the Police for goodness sake is afraid of calling out immigrants for crimes and bad behaviour.

They are in effect being endorsed to continue on with crime and bad behaviour because they know they get away with it. And let me tell you a little something, that is NOT equality. This is an issue that will further divide the people, it is not sustainable. And I am sorry, but it does infuriate me how you’re preaching this nonsense without a single comprehension of the consequences.

Unlike you whose a pretender, I actually want to help people, but let me draw a parallel; what does the flight attendant tell you to do in the case of low oxygen when the masks drop down?

answer; “put on your own mask before you help others”

This should be logical and obvious. You cannot help anyone if you cannot help yourself.
Case closed.
 
Last edited:
Explain to me then why there is a housing crisis.
Why are schools being shut down just to house immigrants happening
why aren’t you housing immigrants yourself, why don’t you let them live with you and share your wealth and food with them
Strange.. I was speaking about the poor here, not only about immigrant and somehow you choosed to focus on immigrants.

Your statements are fallacious mate. Yes there is indeed a crisis of housing, this doesn't mean that there is not enough space. Its just means that some owners are those in power are vultures. And no, I do not need to accept them in my home, there is a lot of vacant spaces outsides of schools that could be used or build to welcome immigrants


And let me introduce you to a seemingly foreign concept; supply and demand
Ok, capitalist. Let me introduce you to two new concepts : Global mutual aid and empathy.


You take the moral high ground acting as if your country and Europe is perfect
Its not mate. In fact, what I say to you applies the same way to my country and europe. We are just not putting razor in frontieres, we are not monsters.


even more people in when even by your own admission is not getting the essentials that they need.
Yes. That's why we must :
1. Keep accepting them because they will keep coming no matter what
2. Create better way to fill their essential needs.

If you want to stop migrant from coming. Take a rifle and go at the frontiere as this is the ONLY way you will be able to stop a family in distress. If you are not willing to do that. Help us or stay silent.


There won’t be enough police to regulate crime.
Yes there will be. More migrant doesn't mean more crime. We just gave you data proving that migrant are less likely to commit crime than long term resident.


The gap between rich and poor will only grow
Migrants will keep coming. So lets do something about that gap instead of focusing on migrant shall we ? Then we will be able to accept everyone AND fill their necessary needs.



Things will get unstable. Gang violence, drugs and other organised crime will rise.
No unless we do everything negate the existence of those person. Then we will have brought done this chaos upon ourself and the other way around.

We have the capacity to create better systems, so lets create better systems. And lets not find excuses to prevent ourselves from creating those systems.


you probably live in a wealthy state that doesn’t actually get the immigrants
No, my province do welcome migrants mate and they are taken care ofby the community. Well... mostly leftist people. We can't really ask bigots to be decent people here.

You’re shielded from the issues
What issues ?
Did you happen to be assaulted by an army of migrant or something ? Did migrant got into your street and vandalized the neihbourhood ? Did you lost job opportunities because of migrants ? Why did you suffered from immigration mate ?

unless you suddenly one day become a victim yourself
Damn, I don't know what those migrants did to you but this was intense...


how the world works in practice and not how things are ideally supposed to be according to paper
I'm not the one who live in an ideal world here. You are.

Its you and your fellow MAGA pals who thinks that because some fascist put razors on frontiere, then people will stop coming..

You are completely underestimating the will of a person that wants them and their family to survive. They sometimes had to facethe absence of food and water, sometimes made thousands of miles by foot in dire conditions, sometimes face the dangerosity of gangs and criminals they are trying to flee... and you think they will stop in front of a few razor and a big wall ?

:kayneshrug:

You are living in a dream world mate.

People will keep coming, no matter what you say. And with climate change ... it will be MULTIPLIED.

If you want to stop them, you only have one solution.
 
Last edited:
Those people either never did science or never really listened to scientists and the consensus in social sciences like I did.
What about the natural sciences? In natural sciences it is as im telling you bro. I know from first hand experience.
Post automatically merged:

And like I demonstrated, the act of science is a moral act toward more progressism and therefore more discoveries. So yes, the act of doing science is leaning logically toward leftism.
Progress in the scientific sense (natural sciences) doesnt necessarily have anything to do with social or political progress.

We arent all as fixated on social sciences like you
Post automatically merged:

see very few biases in mathematics or physics but it can always happen
No bias will change examples like i listed, as in actual constants like the gravitational constant, or the size of the earth, that it orbits the sun, etc.
Post automatically merged:

Science simply can't be disconnected from the researchers.
Ye you should stop talking about science altogether my dude
Post automatically merged:

I'm not the one who said that the earth orbiting the sun won't change.. :seriously:

Respect yourself.
Our conclusions about that wont change depending on the researchers bias, was my point.

Not that we wouldnt reach different conclusions if reality was different.

Stop talking out of your ass so much
Post automatically merged:

Again, science is not all about the conclusion.
But the conclusions were the point we were making lmao
Post automatically merged:

soft science on the other side, biases are a lot more problematic as they are more present because those are sciences studying human behaviors. So we need to be more careful.
Sure, which is probably why plenty people dont value social sciences like they value natural sciences. . .
Post automatically merged:

There are a lot of spaces that can be transformed into school overnight if needed.
Teachers wont magically appear over night. In germany we already have an issue with having not enough teachers. Low birth rates might help with that in the near future
 
Last edited:
I want to test something.. What do you guys think about this ?



What about the natural sciences? In natural sciences it is as im telling you bro. I know from first hand experience.
It works in natural sciences too, you can't disconnect the scientific process from the researcher. Simply because the history and biases of said researcher will eventually influence the process of research. Like I said, in hard science, the result will hardly be biased, what can be on the other hand is the process leading to those results.


Progress in the scientific sense (natural sciences) doesnt necessarily have anything to do with social or political progress.
Progress means progress. YOU are adding the word "social" and "political". The only thing I said is that science is an action toward more progress (more discoveries, less darkness in the minds etc.). This is therefore a moral action in the first place. And moral actions in a divided society can become political. (political meaning "clash of values"). Which means that the act of supporting social and doing science can also be a political act.

In fact, most scientific working on social sciences have no choice but to be politicized, simply because they are facing the same thing that happens in this thread: The denial of the legitimacy of their scientific discipline.


We arent all as fixated on social sciences like you
Why do you think I'm so fixated on social sciences and especially why am I so fixated on sociology ?

Because I love those disciplines more than the others ? No. I like cosmology more. (even tho I can't understand 90% of it)
Because this is a the most political discipline ? No. I think history is far more political as a social science.
Because its easy to understand ? No. Its sometimes quite hard to understand concepts in sociology.

The reason why I'm so fixated on sociology is because I noticed that the legitimization of this specific scientific discipline is THE CORE POINT OF CONTENTION between the two sides of the political spectrum. EVEN if people in those sides don't realize it.

The discourse around the legitimization of sociology (even when its not specified) is what I would call the center of the political spectrum.
A - The legitimization of sociology is what I could call a leftist vector
B - The delegitimization of sociology is what I could call a rightist vector

Depending if someone tends to do either A or B and the degree of it, we can say if said person has more chances to lean toward leftist ideologies or toward conservatist/far right ideologies and how fast they are moving toward them.

In short, I use people's point of views on sociology as a way to know how much work I have to do to protect those people from potential far right and toxic ideologies.

I don't have a lot of hope about that process but I know that the inception of ideas can have quite a power.


No bias will change examples like i listed, as in actual constants like the gravitational constant, or the size of the earth, that it orbits the sun, etc.
Again, you are looking at the conclusions when in reality conclusion are just ONE PART of the scientific process (already explained that). What I'm talking in not only biases in conclusions, but in the entire scientific process.


Ye you should stop talking about science altogether my dude
Sigh...


Our conclusions about that wont change depending on the researchers bias, was my point.
Again, I'm not talking only about conclusions but the entierity of science as a process. In hard science it will be indeed difficult to find biased results as conclusions will most likely be mathematical but that's not the case in social sciences where researches are contextual and therefore not universal.


Stop talking out of your ass so much
Advice for you mate: More reading, less talking. You are missing the majority of my argumentation.


But the conclusions were the point we were making lmao
No, science was. The point was : Science can be biased.
Conclusion in some discipline can be influenced by biases but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about science in general.


Sure, which is probably why plenty people dont value social sciences like they value natural sciences. . .
No. The reason why people don't value social sciences is because social sciences can create result that contradict big political values about the world. This discipline is therefore something that is very hard to accept as scientifically legitimate for some people.

Biases are part of the scientific process so they are not a problem for scientist (if we take care of them of course)


Teachers wont magically appear over night. In germany we already have an issue with having not enough teachers. Low birth rates might help with that in the near future
Actually teachers can appear overnight. The only problem is that those teachers won't be as reliable as educated teachers. But if there is no other choices things can be arranged and temporary mesures can be taken while waiting for real teachers to arrive.

But of course, we also need to be a lot smarter about our educations policies in those nations and form teachers right now so we can be ready. In the meantime, this would be an extrem solution. In reality, we can tank the arrival of chidren from immigration quite easily. Education is not the prime problem. The distribution of ressources is.
 
Last edited:
I want to test something.. What do you guys think about this ?




It works in natural sciences too, you can't disconnect the scientific process from the researcher. Simply because the history and biases of said researcher will eventually influence the process of research. Like I said, in hard science, the result will hardly be biased, what can be on the other hand is the process leading to those results.



Progress means progress. YOU are adding the word "social" and "political". The only thing I said is that science is an action toward more progress (more discoveries, less darkness in the minds etc.). This is therefore a moral action in the first place. And moral actions in a divided society can become political. (political meaning "clash of values"). Which means that the act of supporting social and doing science can also be a political act.

In fact, most scientific working on social sciences have no choice but to be politicized, simply because they are facing the same thing that happens in this thread: The denial of the legitimacy of their scientific discipline.



Why do you think I'm so fixated on social sciences and especially why am I so fixated on sociology ?

Because I love those disciplines more than the others ? No. I like cosmology more. (even tho I can't understand 90% of it)
Because this is a the most political discipline ? No. I think history is far more political as a social science.
Because its easy to understand ? No. Its sometimes quite hard to understand concepts in sociology.

The reason why I'm so fixated on sociology is because I noticed that the legitimization of this specific scientific discipline is THE CORE POINT OF CONTENTION between the two sides of the political spectrum. EVEN if people in those sides don't realize it.

The discourse around the legitimization of sociology (even when its not specified) is what I would call the center of the political spectrum.
A - The legitimization of sociology is what I could call a leftist vector
B - The delegitimization of sociology is what I could call a rightist vector

Depending if someone tends to do either A or B and the degree of it, we can say if said person has more chances to lean toward leftist ideologies or toward conservatist/far right ideologies and how fast they are moving toward them.

In short, I use people's point of views on sociology as a way to know how much work I have to do to protect those people from potential far right and toxic ideologies.

I don't have a lot of hope about that process but I know the that the inception of ideas can have quite a power.



Again, you are looking at the conclusions when in reality conclusion are just ONE PART of the scientific process (already explained that). What I'm talking in not only biases in conclusions, but in the entire scientific process.



Sigh...



Again, I'm not talking only about conclusions but the entierity of science as a process. In hard science it will be indeed difficult to find biased results as conclusions will most likely be mathematical but that's not the case in social sciences where researches are contextual and therefore not universal.



Advice for you mate: More reading, less talking. You are missing the majority of my argumentation.



No, science was. The point was : Science can be biased.
Conclusion in some discipline can be influenced by biases but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about science in general.



No. The reason why people don't value social sciences is because social sciences can create result that contradict big political values about the world. This discipline is therefore something that is very hard to accept as scientifically legitimate for some people.

Biases are part of the scientific process so they are not a problem for scientist (if we take care of them of course)



Actually teachers can appear overnight. The only problem is that those teachers won't be as reliable as educated teachers. But if there is no other choices things can be arranged and temporary mesures can be taken while waiting for real teachers to arrive.

But of course, we also need to be a lot smarter about our educations policies in the those nations and form teachers right now so we can be ready. In the meantime, this would be an extrem solution. In reality, we can tank the arrival of chidren from immigration quite easily. Education is not the prime problem. The distribution of ressources is.
Typical you would defend the destruction of the past. Your kind takes away but never creates.
 
retarded
Post automatically merged:

The reason why I'm so fixated on sociology is because I noticed that the legitimization of this specific scientific discipline is THE CORE POINT OF CONTENTION between the two sides of the political spectrum. EVEN if people in those sides don't realize it.
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:

Again, you are looking at the conclusions when in reality conclusion are just ONE PART of the scientific process (already explained that). What I'm talking in not only biases in conclusions, but in the entire scientific process.
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:

No. The reason why people don't value social sciences is because social sciences can create result that contradict big political values about the world. This discipline is therefore something that is very hard to accept as scientifically legitimate for some people.
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:

Actually teachers can appear overnight. The only problem is that those teachers won't be as reliable as educated teachers. But if there is no other choices things can be arranged and temporary mesures can be taken while waiting for real teachers to arrive.

But of course, we also need to be a lot smarter about our educations policies in the those nations and form teachers right now so we can be ready. In the meantime, this would be an extrem solution. In reality, we can tank the arrival of chidren from immigration quite easily. Education is not the prime problem. The distribution of ressources is.
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:

Destruction of anything, be it art or something else is a great way to get people to not care about your cause due to its idiotic methods which produce no positive outcomes.
yep, like the glue shit this will make more people either not care or actively be against your cause. sadly
 
Last edited:
Leave art the fuck alone. Go protest a dealership or a dockyard
I see. Nothing surprising here.


Typical you would defend the destruction of the past. Your kind takes away but never creates.
Nothing surprising here either


Destruction of anything, be it art or something else is a great way to get people to not care about your cause due to its idiotic methods which produce no positive outcomes.
Hm, I didn't knew you, but now I do, thanks.


Pretty sure all these elites preaching 'save the climate'
Interesting.. What makes you say that those two women are part of the elite ?


Makes my blood boil honestly, people who do this has no respect from me
Noted. You are confirming my calculations.


The painting is behind a glass wall, no? So no damage was done
Now this is an interesting reaction :)


And.... Your point of view is noted.


couldnt care less about what is contention between the sides of the political spectrum.
Looking at the way you juggle with problematic values I will say that I'm not surprised.


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
And its okay.


ye but the peeps replying to your "science leans left" shit were talking about the conclusions, me included.
Well if they want, but that's not what I'm talking about. Science is not only about conclusions.


thats what people here meant when they say science is supposed to be neutral.
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.


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:
Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:



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.
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.


bringing in more people that require special education (language barrier as an example) is a difficult to impossible task
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.
 
Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:
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.



Post automatically merged:

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.
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


So the argument "its susceptible to biases therefore its unreliable" is fallacious.

Natural sciences have others biases in the scientific process they must overcome.
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:

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.
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:

Bros are acting like Da Vinci was responsible for global warming, somehow.

What a bunch of attention whores.
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:

Talking about Dawkins and the impossibility to separate science from politic... you might wanna listen to this video instead:
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.
Post automatically merged:

There’s a difference between strategic activism, and being annoying in public.
 
Top