|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 22, 2017 16:09:04 GMT
I absolutely hate gangster science and I will do anything I can to oppose the filthy vermin who are constantly shoving it on us. I'm really curious how this whole "gangster science" thing operates in your mind. Do all the world's scientists get together like the Legion of Doom and decide on what agenda they're going to push that week/year/decade and then go about pushing it primarily in little-read peer-reviewed journals that are almost solely read by others in their field in the hopes that they might get lucky and get featured in the news media?
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 22, 2017 17:12:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 17:34:11 GMT
I absolutely hate gangster science and I will do anything I can to oppose the filthy vermin who are constantly shoving it on us. I'm really curious how this whole "gangster science" thing operates in your mind. Do all the world's scientists get together like the Legion of Doom and decide on what agenda they're going to push that week/year/decade and then go about pushing it primarily in little-read peer-reviewed journals that are almost solely read by others in their field in the hopes that they might get lucky and get featured in the news media? Well now, I would think it works like this. They get paid rather good money to produce results that jibe with conclusions that have already been reached, and if they don't do that, their funding gets cut off, and they will have to find some other kind of occupation, like flipping burgers in a fast food joint, or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 17:35:25 GMT
Now THAT was funny. I don't know how you meant it, but it was still funny.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 17:39:37 GMT
If you have any actual facts, feel free to present them. Planets aren't invisible or magical. There's a couple of facts for ya. Oh, and the Earth is an oblate sphereoid. No, you're confusing me with your own fantasies of what people who disagree with you say because you're not smart enough to remember what we actually said. But do keep trying, there's a good chap. I never said planets were invisible or magical. You keep implying that I said it, based on the principle that if you say it enough, people will come to believe I said it. Are you sure it wasn't you who said that if a large celestial object entered the solar system it would make the seasons longer and change the time of the sunset? I thought that was you, and Hitler and puvo jumped in to agree with you. I can find the thread if I have to. It'll take a little time, but it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jun 22, 2017 17:40:27 GMT
Now THAT was funny. I don't know how you meant it, but it was still funny. Good! My work in this thread is complete!
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 17:41:47 GMT
Enjoy. Disclaimer: The usual. My thoughts: I don't really care so much about round earth/flat earth or young earth/old earth, but I post about it for one reason; because I absolutely hate gangster science and I will do anything I can to oppose the filthy vermin who are constantly shoving it on us. And they are without a doubt vermin, fully deserving of the worst pain that hell has to offer. That's all. What you call gangster science is real science conducted by real scientists who then submit their findings to other experts who then do what real scientists do - conduct their own experiments to see if the initial results are repeatable. How you get anything gangster out of that is a question that can only be answered by drunk fools drooling on themselves. Looks as if Cash's chain got rattled. What do YOU think?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 17:45:03 GMT
I'm really curious how this whole "gangster science" thing operates in your mind. Do all the world's scientists get together like the Legion of Doom and decide on what agenda they're going to push that week/year/decade and then go about pushing it primarily in little-read peer-reviewed journals that are almost solely read by others in their field in the hopes that they might get lucky and get featured in the news media? Well now, I would think it works like this. They get paid rather good money to produce results that jibe with conclusions that have already been reached, and if they don't do that, their funding gets cut off, and they will have to find some other kind of occupation, like flipping burgers in a fast food joint, or something like that. Exactly where did you get that idea?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 22, 2017 17:58:22 GMT
I'm really curious how this whole "gangster science" thing operates in your mind. Do all the world's scientists get together like the Legion of Doom and decide on what agenda they're going to push that week/year/decade and then go about pushing it primarily in little-read peer-reviewed journals that are almost solely read by others in their field in the hopes that they might get lucky and get featured in the news media? Well now, I would think it works like this. They get paid rather good money to produce results that jibe with conclusions that have already been reached, and if they don't do that, their funding gets cut off, and they will have to find some other kind of occupation, like flipping burgers in a fast food joint, or something like that. So do you think ALL science works like this--meaning that all science is just paid for by outsiders who want them to produce certain results--or just some science? And if it's just some science, then how do you distinguish between the "gangster" variety and the "real" variety? Further, in the gangster variety, how do you suppose they're able to maintain this on a global scale, being able to pay and convince almost all scientists (and all publications) in a field to produce the same results and preventing any others in the field from producing contradicting results? Seems like it require a massive amount of money and keeping everyone quiet about it, and I think with the latter you overestimate how likely it is for that many people to keep quiet.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 18:11:58 GMT
Well now, I would think it works like this. They get paid rather good money to produce results that jibe with conclusions that have already been reached, and if they don't do that, their funding gets cut off, and they will have to find some other kind of occupation, like flipping burgers in a fast food joint, or something like that. So do you think ALL science works like this--meaning that all science is just paid for by outsiders who want them to produce certain results--or just some science? And if it's just some science, then how do you distinguish between the "gangster" variety and the "real" variety? Further, in the gangster variety, how do you suppose they're able to maintain this on a global scale, being able to pay and convince almost all scientists (and all publications) in a field to produce the same results and preventing any others in the field from producing contradicting results? Seems like it require a massive amount of money and keeping everyone quiet about it, and I think with the latter you overestimate how likely it is for that many people to keep quiet. The Herd earns the money. There's a very large supply of it. TPTB can afford to spend money that they didn't earn on anything they want.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 22, 2017 18:21:27 GMT
I'm really curious how this whole "gangster science" thing operates in your mind. Do all the world's scientists get together like the Legion of Doom and decide on what agenda they're going to push that week/year/decade and then go about pushing it primarily in little-read peer-reviewed journals that are almost solely read by others in their field in the hopes that they might get lucky and get featured in the news media? Well now, I would think it works like this. They get paid rather good money to produce results that jibe with conclusions that have already been reached, and if they don't do that, their funding gets cut off, and they will have to find some other kind of occupation, like flipping burgers in a fast food joint, or something like that. So basically, as with every other insane thing you believe, you've just made it up or believed what a YouTube video told you to.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 18:30:40 GMT
Watched the first two minutes. We trust scientists because it is proven that science works. The Moon landing, Nuclear energy etc are proof of this. I must say though I do agree to a degree with what they are saying. Idiots like Cash say things like "Journal, issue and page number?" Which is obviously an appeal to authority. There are other examples of so called skeptics being seemingly incapable of independent thought. FilmFlaneur and "can something come from nothing"? is another example. That's why I do these threads. Once the thread is there, they dare not leave it in-mocked. I would prefer that the good people of the world start thinking for themselves and stop blindly trusting everything that is told to them by so-called scientists, but if all I can do is aggravate the "progressive" thought-dictating machine, then that's what I am going to do. They are not the friends of humanity that they claim to be.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 22, 2017 18:43:28 GMT
Watched the first two minutes. We trust scientists because it is proven that science works. The Moon landing, Nuclear energy etc are proof of this. I must say though I do agree to a degree with what they are saying. Idiots like Cash say things like "Journal, issue and page number?" Which is obviously an appeal to authority. There are other examples of so called skeptics being seemingly incapable of independent thought. FilmFlaneur and "can something come from nothing"? is another example. Are you aware that what is being asked for when someone says "Journal, issue and page number?" , is actually that what is presented is supported by someone using the scientific method. There is a reason for peer review, it goes towards ensuring that what is claimed by one person is not just taken as gospel but that others who have training in the necessary disciplines have looked over the work and found that no errors were made in gathering the data. This is why things published in actual scientific papers will always carry more weight than youtube videos made in peoples basements.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 18:44:31 GMT
Watched the first two minutes. We trust scientists because it is proven that science works. The Moon landing, Nuclear energy etc are proof of this. I must say though I do agree to a degree with what they are saying. Idiots like Cash say things like "Journal, issue and page number?" Which is obviously an appeal to authority. There are other examples of so called skeptics being seemingly incapable of independent thought. FilmFlaneur and "can something come from nothing"? is another example. That's why I do these threads. Once the thread is there, they dare not leave it in-mocked. I would prefer that the good people of the world start thinking for themselves and stop blindly trusting everything that is told to them by so-called scientists, but if all I can do is aggravate the "progressive" thought-dictating machine, then that's what I am going to do. They are not the friends of humanity that they claim to be. Yes, it's much better to get your information about science from Youtube videos made by lunatics than from actual scientists, oh excuse me..."so-called scientists" who just happen to have doctorate degrees in their chosen fields. Now that fuckwit you to whom you just replied can return and show once again that he's too fucking ignorant to know that he has no clue what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. Like you and Blade he just makes up bullshit because he's read someone else use the terminology and thinks he can con people into thinking he knows what the fuck he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 18:47:25 GMT
Watched the first two minutes. We trust scientists because it is proven that science works. The Moon landing, Nuclear energy etc are proof of this. I must say though I do agree to a degree with what they are saying. Idiots like Cash say things like "Journal, issue and page number?" Which is obviously an appeal to authority. There are other examples of so called skeptics being seemingly incapable of independent thought. FilmFlaneur and "can something come from nothing"? is another example. Are you aware that what is being asked for when someone says "Journal, issue and page number?" , is actually that what is presented is supported by someone using the scientific method. There is a reason for peer review, it goes towards ensuring that what is claimed by one person is not just taken as gospel but that others who have training in the necessary disciplines have looked over the work and found that no errors were made in gathering the data. This is why things published in actual scientific papers will always carry more weight than youtube videos made in peoples basements. Thanks, but I'm sure you've read enough of pedo-troll's posts to know he is hopelessly clueless. He actually thinks it's an appeal to authority fallacy to ask for actual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 22, 2017 18:47:37 GMT
I must apologise to you, yesterday I thought you said the most ironic self un-aware thing ever and said that it was comedy gold, but apparently you just go from strength to strength. And just to be clear with you, it is obvious that you do not think for yourself, you follow any outlandish conspiracy theory you come across blindly and without reason. Collate that.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 18:48:14 GMT
That's why I do these threads. Once the thread is there, they dare not leave it in-mocked. I would prefer that the good people of the world start thinking for themselves and stop blindly trusting everything that is told to them by so-called scientists, but if all I can do is aggravate the "progressive" thought-dictating machine, then that's what I am going to do. They are not the friends of humanity that they claim to be. Yes, it's much better to get your information about science from Youtube videos made by lunatics than from actual scientists, oh excuse me..."so-called scientists" who just happen to have doctorate degrees in their chosen fields. Now that fuckwit you to whom you just replied can return and show once again that he's too fucking ignorant to know that he has no clue what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. Like you and Blade he just makes up bullshit because he's read someone else use the terminology and thinks he can con people into thinking he knows what the fuck he's talking about. Really? Doctorate degrees? Wow. Then I suppose you had better put your faith in them. If they have doctorate degrees, they can't be wrong, and they are incapable of lying, yes?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 22, 2017 18:48:23 GMT
Watched the first two minutes. We trust scientists because it is proven that science works. The Moon landing, Nuclear energy etc are proof of this. I must say though I do agree to a degree with what they are saying. Idiots like Cash say things like "Journal, issue and page number?" Which is obviously an appeal to authority. There are other examples of so called skeptics being seemingly incapable of independent thought. FilmFlaneur and "can something come from nothing"? is another example. Are you aware that what is being asked for when someone says "Journal, issue and page number?" , is actually that what is presented is supported by someone using the scientific method. There is a reason for peer review, it goes towards ensuring that what is claimed by one person is not just taken as gospel but that others who have training in the necessary disciplines have looked over the work and found that no errors were made in gathering the data. This is why things published in actual scientific papers will always carry more weight than youtube videos made in peoples basements. Sure but that is not an excuse for ignoring actual legitimate criticisms of scientific theories as Cash and co have done.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 22, 2017 18:49:43 GMT
I must apologise to you, yesterday I thought you said the most ironic self un-aware thing ever and said that it was comedy gold, but apparently you just go from strength to strength. And just to be clear with you, it is obvious that you do not think for yourself, you follow any outlandish conspiracy theory you come across blindly and without reason. Collate that. It isn't worth collating.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 22, 2017 18:49:45 GMT
tpfkar And yet you drew him into this thread with an insult. I believe the irreligious have a moral responsibility not to criticize religion.
|
|