jesseriley wrote:
Sally paid $75 to be called a beta?
Or the equivalent based on his age. Sally is a moron. And yes, I got your joke there.
jesseriley wrote:
Sally paid $75 to be called a beta?
Or the equivalent based on his age. Sally is a moron. And yes, I got your joke there.
Racket wrote:
Straw man arguments? Lol, sit back down. And I say this as someone who is actually a published scientist.
I mean, mathematician, but same thing pretty much
Helpful hint: Appeals to authority are never a good look. Appeals to one's own authority are an even worse look. And appeals to one's self-proclaimed, unverifiable authority are damned near as low as it gets.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You think these straw man arguments are correct?
Sally doesn't even tell us where she got this tripe.
Straw man arguments? Lol, sit back down. And I say this as someone who is actually a published scientist.
I mean, mathematician, but same thing pretty much
Yes, straw man arguments.
"The myth that science seeks to achieve a consensus" is not something anyone here has suggested. I certainly haven't.
"No scientist uses the phrase ‘settled science’ to support their conclusions." is also something nobody is suggesting.
"Yes, we use standards and conventions..." Nobody is saying a standard or convention constitutes a concensus.
"Scientists are human, and they're susceptible to human weakness, and the urge to conform is one of them. " Nobody is suggesting that scientific consensus is about conformity.
Kent calls his boss Pompeo a liar, says he tried to orchestrate a coverup. Sayonara, bozo!
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
Straw man arguments? Lol, sit back down. And I say this as someone who is actually a published scientist.
I mean, mathematician, but same thing pretty much
Yes, straw man arguments.
"The myth that science seeks to achieve a consensus" is not something anyone here has suggested. I certainly haven't.
"No scientist uses the phrase ‘settled science’ to support their conclusions." is also something nobody is suggesting.
"Yes, we use standards and conventions..." Nobody is saying a standard or convention constitutes a concensus.
* "Scientists are human, and they're susceptible to human weakness, and the urge to conform is one of them. " Nobody is suggesting that scientific consensus is about conformity. *
Actually, Sally is suggesting exactly that.
So your last point really doesn't fit in at all. It has nothing to do with supposed straw man arguments.
Trump has surrounded himself with only the BEST people all his life.
Keep this simple. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Practically it has much to do with the field of science. Scientists use and take into consideration the consensus of scientific findings of other scientists.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You think these straw man arguments are correct?
Sally doesn't even tell us where she got this tripe.
Straw man arguments? Lol, sit back down. And I say this as someone who is actually a published scientist.
I mean, mathematician, but same thing pretty much
Trollminator wrote:
How do you tzees feel about witnesses just disregarding legal order to go in for hearings? Do you just say well it's a sham impeachment so it's ok to not follow the rules? Do you all just not show up for jury duty or for any other court date because you think you were being targeted by the system? I don't get the justification.
How did you feel about Rosa Parks not ceding her bus seat? She was not following the rule, was she?
It's called civil disobedience.
Forgotten Man wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
How do you tzees feel about witnesses just disregarding legal order to go in for hearings? Do you just say well it's a sham impeachment so it's ok to not follow the rules? Do you all just not show up for jury duty or for any other court date because you think you were being targeted by the system? I don't get the justification.
How did you feel about Rosa Parks not ceding her bus seat? She was not following the rule, was she?
It's called civil disobedience.
It's always 'Rosa Parks' when some dumb dumb wants to rationalize an illegal act. This isn't the same at all. You can't just break the law and say it's ok because Rosa Parks did it. Nobody in their right mind thinks that ignoring a subpoena is the same as Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus.
I popped in today to see if there were still some Dumb Dumbs posting, and I see that Dumb Dumbs SV and RFH are still posting, but we have a new Dumb Dumb. Forgotten Man, join Sally V and Rigged FH in the Dumb Dumb group. Dumb Dumb.
Forgotten Man wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
How do you tzees feel about witnesses just disregarding legal order to go in for hearings? Do you just say well it's a sham impeachment so it's ok to not follow the rules? Do you all just not show up for jury duty or for any other court date because you think you were being targeted by the system? I don't get the justification.
How did you feel about Rosa Parks not ceding her bus seat? She was not following the rule, was she?
It's called civil disobedience.
I forgot the two are the same thing! Good trolling but sadly this is how many would respond.
Trump loses again! Justice is catching up to the criminal.
Helpful Hints for Dumb Asses wrote:
Racket wrote:
Straw man arguments? Lol, sit back down. And I say this as someone who is actually a published scientist.
I mean, mathematician, but same thing pretty much
Helpful hint: Appeals to authority are never a good look. Appeals to one's own authority are an even worse look. And appeals to one's self-proclaimed, unverifiable authority are damned near as low as it gets.
Helpful hint for freshmen who just learned about informal fallacies in philosophy 101 : learn when they're actually applicable or risk being called retarded. Run along now and brush up on your Aristotle for that final coming up.
Bloomberg is in the race now.
not sure if this is good or bad.
i hope he is also giving tens of millions to the DNC digital advert dep't.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html
agip wrote:
Bloomberg is in the race now.
not sure if this is good or bad.
i hope he is also giving tens of millions to the DNC digital advert dep't.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html
I would doubt Bloomberg would have the backing of the Democrats nationally however if he were to be the nominee I think he would win and perhaps easily.
We're a long way from that.
Hintz wrote:
Bebaeos Gnosis Spoude wrote:
Please explain the research you were involved with as an undergraduate business major.
LOL . . . . hint for Sally: undergraduates are not involved in research work (graduate level).
I never said that. I don't remember the actual post but I believe it was the fact that university rankings are based on graduate programs.
The Fokus wrote:
agip wrote:
Bloomberg is in the race now.
not sure if this is good or bad.
i hope he is also giving tens of millions to the DNC digital advert dep't.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.htmlI would doubt Bloomberg would have the backing of the Democrats nationally however if he were to be the nominee I think he would win and perhaps easily.
We're a long way from that.
I like him, but I don't think I really want him to president. We'll see what his policies are but my guess is that he'll flounder. Ultra rich billionaire for president isn't exactly a popular concept for Democrats right now
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
Straw man arguments? Lol, sit back down. And I say this as someone who is actually a published scientist.
I mean, mathematician, but same thing pretty much
Yes, straw man arguments.
"The myth that science seeks to achieve a consensus" is not something anyone here has suggested. I certainly haven't.
"No scientist uses the phrase ‘settled science’ to support their conclusions." is also something nobody is suggesting.
"Yes, we use standards and conventions..." Nobody is saying a standard or convention constitutes a concensus.
"Scientists are human, and they're susceptible to human weakness, and the urge to conform is one of them. " Nobody is suggesting that scientific consensus is about conformity.
Fat Hurts - important question for you ... Would you say that Global warming is man-made and is caused by increasing CO2 Emissions is "settled science?" I want you to focus on the "man-made" part. Meaning, there is no use debating it - it IS settled science? I really want to hear you answer on this.
Sally Vix wrote:
Hintz wrote:
LOL . . . . hint for Sally: undergraduates are not involved in research work (graduate level).
I never said that. I don't remember the actual post but I believe it was the fact that university rankings are based on graduate programs.
You never said research. Read your own post.
You are taking credit as being an undergraduate from a top 40 research university. You can't make such a claim unless you were involved in the programs the university was ranked for. Your claim is like saying I graduated with a business degree at one of the top engineering schools in the country. The business and engineering sides are not related.