Controversial General Political Discussion

[Zenos7]

This is the core problem...let's say there are 10 scientists working together. 3 of them say that a procedure is safe while the other 7 says it's not. Clearly a definitive conclusion has yet to be met.

However, some rando claims that the 3 scientists are correct, simply because the conclusion of those 3 fits in with their agenda. If you bring up the other 7, you get called a science denier.

Science is a constant work in progress. Biased individuals only push scientists that fits their agenda.

Politicians and media (and some randos) will use science according to their confirmation bias, definitely.

 

[Logiko]

However, some rando claims that the 3 scientists are correct, simply because the conclusion of those 3 fits in with their agenda. If you bring up the other 7, you get called a science denier.

No. You get called a science denier for denying the scientific process. No people called science deniers do the work to search for the consensus or for what the majority of scientists agrees on. (and usually, people who disagree with the consensus are not on a ratio of 3 to 7, but much less than that.)

 

[NAMELESS]

This
[automerge]1730741164[/automerge]

Vaccines are still not generally cures lmao. For a cure you first need to contract a disease, while vaccines are given preemptively.

So yeah no, i dont remember anyone, much less actual scientists, saying anything of the sort
[automerge]1730741212[/automerge]

Not for the right reasons though lmao.
[automerge]1730741320[/automerge]

I seriously only remember dementia joe saying the vaccine makes people not catch covid.
[automerge]1730741398[/automerge]

Aig and anti-evolution? No thanks
[automerge]1730741512[/automerge]

What does evolution have to do with racism again?

The idea that advanced civilizations are destined to wipe out less develop ones. Darwin was a proponent of that. He categorized more humans based on skin color and facials characteristics too. Watch the video, it isn't a religious bs. There is valid criticism there.

 

[Uncle Van]

Politicians and media (and some randos) will use science according to their confirmation bias, definitely.

Earlier I compared an individual's use of science in this thread to a Flat Earther. Flat Earthers don't ask themselves "Is the Earth flat?". They say "The Earth IS flat, and I'm gonna prove it." Que the constant disregard of round earth evidence.

 

[NAMELESS]

This is the core problem...let's say there are 10 scientists working together. 3 of them say that a procedure is safe while the other 7 says it's not. Clearly a definitive conclusion has yet to be met.

However, some rando claims that the 3 scientists are correct, simply because the conclusion of those 3 fits in with their agenda. If you bring up the other 7, you get called a science denier.

Science is a constant work in progress. Biased individuals only push scientists that fits their agenda.

Lets not forget that scientists were also coerced into silence. The guy that worked on the early rna vaccines got erased from social media for calling out the covid vaccine as ineffective and potentially dangerous.

 

[Zenos7]

The idea that advanced civilizations are destined to wipe out less develop cultures. Darwin was a proponent of that. He categorized more humans based on skin color and facials characteristics too. Watch the video, it isn't a religious bs. There is valid criticism there.

That has nothing to do with evolution. And darwin isnt even remotely the end all be all for evolution anyway
[automerge]1730742300[/automerge]

Earlier I compared an individual's use of science in this thread to a Flat Earther. Flat Earthers don't ask themselves "Is the Earth flat?". They say "The Earth IS flat, and I'm gonna prove it." Que the constant disregard of round earth evidence.

Yep, they start out with their conclusion and try to work towards that conclusion. Thats anti-scientific in principle

 

[NAMELESS]

That has nothing to do with evolution. And darwin isnt even remotely the end all be all for evolution anyway
[automerge]1730742300[/automerge]

Yep, they start out with their conclusion and try to work towards that conclusion. Thats anti-scientific in principle

Yes, the video isn't about evolution. Its about racism. If you cared to watch that thing for 15min you would understand the origins of racism as we know it today.

 

[Zenos7]

Yes, the video isn't about evolution. Its about racism. If you cared to watch that thing for 15min you would understand the origins of racism as we know it today.

Aig is proposing young earth creationism though.

 

[Logiko]

Yes, the video isn't about evolution. Its about racism. If you cared to watch that thing for 15min you would understand the origins of racism as we know it today.

What about listening to researchers if you want to know more about racism ??

 

[Brush D. Teeth]

What about listening to researchers if you want to know more about racism ??

What about listening to racists if you want to know more about racism?

 

[Logiko]

What abiut listening to racists if you want to know more about racism?

??

 

[Mathias]

??

I swear his takes are very unhinged. This is what US elections does to your brain

 

[Ravagerblade]

No. You get called a science denier for denying the scientific process. No people called science deniers do the work to search for the consensus or for what the majority of scientists agrees on. (and usually, people who disagree with the consensus are not on a ratio of 3 to 7, but much less than that.)

Post Truth

 

[Logiko]

Post Truth

You are not a pokemon you know.. No need to name yourself each times you want to talk to me.

 

[Ravagerblade]

You are not a pokemon you know.. No need to name yourself each times you want to talk to me.

Hah That was almost funny. If it wasn't so sad that you keep denying what you are.

 

[Daniel]

If an attempt at the removal/deconstruction of an existing culture is made by a foreign party, the people within the confines of the existing culture will double down on defending it if the people notice that aspects of their daily lives are slowly changing for the worse.

An explanation for the pushback against LGBT+ and the almost uncontrolled number of migrants coming into the US by the local population (or in a state, country, or even online) that currently exist there since these two things are usually detrimental to their existing community.

 

[Logiko]

Hah That was almost funny. If it wasn't so sad that you keep denying what you are.

If an attempt at the removal/deconstruction of an existing culture is made by a foreign party, the people within the confines of the existing culture will double down on defending it if the people notice that aspects of their daily lives are slowly changing for the worse.

An explanation for the pushback against LGBT+ and the almost uncontrolled number of migrants coming into the US by the local population (or in a state, country, or even online) that currently exist there since these two things are usually detrimental to their existing community.

A few fallacies here tho.

1. Progressism is not pushed by a foreign party. But by people inside the society that are fed up with problematic behaviors and intolerance.

2. People's daily life is not getting worse because of progressism but because of capitalism.

3. Migrants are not detrimental to societies. They are actually quite helpfull.

 

[NAMELESS]

What about listening to racists if you want to know more about racism?

This thread is so fucking retarded.
[automerge]1730753505[/automerge]

What about listening to researchers if you want to know more about racism ??

What about watching the video until the end and stop pretending you know what you are talking about?

 

[Logiko]

What about watching the video until the end and stop pretending you know what you are talking about?

When there are two fallacies on the first 15 seconds, I really have no desire to watch the rest.

 

[NAMELESS]

When there are two fallacies on the first 15 seconds, I really have no desire to watch the rest.

then shut the fuck up