Right. It's a philosophical point; it COULD be true, but if it IS true, there's no way to tell, and because there's no way to tell, there's no point in considering the possibility.
Once you dismiss it, "science" as a field proceeds from base notions by observation and analysis alone; there is no "faith" required. Indeed, even that the rules of the universe are consistent is a conclusion drawn from observation, not an assumed principle.
Appeal to tradition... such a strange thing to argue, for sure.
If "tradition" is all you have for why you are doing something, anything, it's time look for better reasons, or discard the activity altogether. Maybe forge newer, better practices in it's place.
But as has been noted before, it's not supposed to make sense. Not in politics. It's supposed to tug at the garrote wires they have in place of heart strings.
Most of the ideas conservatives complain about predate their ideas.
Good thing no one else has ever lost a war ever, or this would be dumb as hell.We have after all clearly seen what modern technocratic theories and data has brought us in Afghanistan: complete failure of achieving any lasting or meaningful goals.
Define "meaningful use".Which seems to sum up the overall performance of liberalism in the long-term too. A lot of freedom sure, but less and less the ability to make any meaningful use from it
Again, killing the mentally ill, poor, and infertile isn't actually solving those issues.as mental illness, wealth inequality and infertility goes through the roof
Really? Most of the people who I've seen supporting the Taliban here have been rich white people. What's their excuse?and the only way to keep sustaining the system is by importing a sub-class of wage slaves, whom in many cases are disconnected from the local culture or show an affinity to ideologies such as the Taliban etc.
See, the thing is that conservatives don't actually believe this. If they did, they would give all their money to brown people and live in the hinterlands wallowing in their own excrement. They don't, they just cosplay it occasionally.Sometimes the best way forward isn't the one where everything is sunshine and rainbows, but where there is more sacrifice and hardship.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
This is such nonsense posing as knowledge it's laughable.
It feels like reading a 9th graders book report who took one summer college class and thinks they have it all figured out.
I can be very certain about that.
My fav bit is "modern technocratic theories and data"
Then comes "mental illness, wealth inequality and infertility goes through the roof"
I guess they pulled that from their modern technocratic data!
Also re: Correlation and Causation
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3...+and+causation
What is laughable, is they aren't actually even talking about traditions that are that old. Like they argue marriage is one man and one woman ... that's a relatively recent thing. Marriages often involved extended families, and the traditional thing they cling to isn't that old.
Tradition is whatever they want to claim it as, whether it is the traditional form or not.
- - - Updated - - -
Not really. Whether I am a brain in a jar or a monkey that's a little more intelligent or even an advanced computer code, all that matters is that I am experiencing something and that experience is capable of being measured reliably. That's not really faith.
Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
–The Sith Code
This is just bullshit. The only "area" of science that's not permitted is experimentation on humans, and even there, it's just highly restricted and managed. Because the issue with human experimentation is that the subjects are people, and those people have rights which must be protected.
That's why eugenics isn't tolerated. Not because it's ineffective or because the science isn't practically achievable, but because any attempt to do so necessarily requires the subjugation of a human population to use as lab rats.
There is still science done on humans. That's how new medicines are developed, after a certain point; human testing is inevitable. But it's done with volunteers who are well aware of the potential risks of involvement and agree to the process.
Bullshit. You have no basis for this. You're just engaging in science denialism. May as well be ranting about the flat Earth, at this point.Science today is not free or honest. It is controlled by a certain ideological narrative.
It's pretty clear you're just trying to waffle around and bring up "scientific racism" without coming right out and saying that's what you're talking about. But you're not that subtle. And scientific racism is just naked, hate-fueled racism. The excuses it gives to defend that hatred have the veneer of science, but it's all pseudoscience crackpot nonsense once you scratch the surface; a passel of lies used to conceal the misanthropy and cruelty that motivates the racism itself. I'm comfortable making that statement because you keep talking about "since WWII", and it was after WWII that scientific racism was fully debunked and denounced.
You're pushing empty, blathering racism, and whining that you can't be openly, viciously, sadistically racist to people any more. That's it. That's all you're whining about, really.
Last edited by Endus; 2021-09-16 at 05:49 AM.
I'm not the one refusing to back up their position with an actual evidence-based argument.
I made no such admission.Well, thanks for admitting that the social narrative to you is more important than science and facts at least. It is a good first step.
Ironically, you are the one pushing a social narrative, one that favors a misanthropically racist point of view, specifically. Me pointing out that your support of "scientific racism" is bunk pseudoscience with no validity and only a motive of sadism behind it is the position based on science and facts.
You're pushing racism. You're upset you can't subjugate people of other ethnicities that you see as inferior. It's really not any more complicated or deep than that, and it has no basis in science or fact whatsoever. Just pseudoscientific lies used to hide that truth.
- - - Updated - - -
I would. They don't. Not remotely, not even a little, not by any stretch of any imagination that isn't coming from a racist's head who has predetermined conclusions they will misrepresent the data to support.
You're pushing bigoted pseudoscience that's been thoroughly debunked for 70+ years.
You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
It's also not my job to convince you of anything. This is a forum. We're performing for an audience. I'm explaining to them how meritless your position is; you being unwilling to accept that truth is simply not my problem in any way whatsoever.
However, in the interest of ensuring this dunk is fully slammed, enjoy;
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ism-180972243/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...693_story.html
https://library.harvard.edu/confront...entific-racism
https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...f-race-science
https://www.americanscientist.org/bl...n-race-science
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...89268020953622
Your position is pseudoscience that has been repeatedly debunked and demonstrated to be malicious in intent, every time it crops up. It has no validity. You're pushing a racist social agenda and cloaking it under a false claim of scientific validity.
What views? All you've done since you came into the thread is unload a bunch of platitudes and empty rhetoric and adamantly refuse to elaborate on anything you're talking about beyond 'No, you're wrong because I said so'.
Time would be better spent debating a freshly painted wall in the hopes one can convince it to dry faster.
Last edited by Xyonai; 2021-09-16 at 07:08 AM.
That's not what it's saying, at all. It's acknowledging that no one is free of bias. That's simply a fact.
Ironically, pointing to how some racist scientists conduct shoddy science to back their racist views.
Nah.Some of the other articles also seem entirely taken by an ideological or even religious conviction rather than basing their opinions on anything measurable as fact.
And I'll note you don't have any reputable sources you can cite. Not a one. And you know it, which is why you won't bother, and you keep trying to deflect. You'd think I'd be easy to debunk if you could do it. I'm making pretty unequivocal statements, here. And yet, you don't even try.