*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

You'll never convince me that this isn't the most compelling, complete, conclusive, and cogent analysis of disproportionate poverty among black populations. You'll never convince me that racism, biased policing, or white privilege are the reasons that black people are less prosperous.

To me it's clear. Go to school, wear a rubber, and you'll be FINE regardless of what color your skin is.

[spoonitnow]

Go to school

This is the only issue I have with your points. Their schools are super fucked up, largely because of the way funding is distributed via property taxes. Voucher system ftw.

[BananaStand]

This is the only issue I have with your points. Their schools are super fucked up,

So???

Again, this analysis makes no distinction for the quality of school systems. Furthermore, I doubt very very much that that the 30+% of black kids that drop out of high school cite "underfunding" as the reason.

When you apply for a job, the application will ask you what is the highest level of education that you've completed. If you have completed any level of education, at the very least it's a testament to your ability to show up regularly and successfully complete rudimentary tasks. If you haven't completed any level of education, it suggests a lack of commitment and drive.

Employers really don't care if you mastered trigonometry. They don't care if you can recall the circumstances surrounding the War of 1812. They don't care if you know who Aaron Burr is. They care about reliability and work ethic. A diploma is evidence that you have those things. Not having a diploma is evidence that you don't.

I'm not saying that underfunding schools in minority areas is not a problem. It is. But it's a LOOOOOOONG way from explaining why a group that represents 13% of the population is responsible for 50% of the murders and robberies in this country.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You'll never convince me [...]

Do you openly embrace fanaticism, or is it something you do by mistake?
(I'm legitimately curious.)

[spoonitnow]

Do you openly embrace fanaticism, or is it something you do by mistake?
(I'm legitimately curious.)

I think you're overstepping here.

[BananaStand]

Do you openly embrace fanaticism, or is it something you do by mistake?
(I'm legitimately curious.)

Cold, unbiased, provable, repeatable, irrefutable facts are compelling to me.

Do physicists feel differently?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think you're overstepping here.

Given that's perfectly non-insulting or offensive criticism of me, which came from spoonitnow of all people, I'll have to seek the truth in it.

Am I wrong about fanaticism? I understand fanaticism as the adherence to a belief despite any and all contrary evidence which may or may eventually come to light.
As such, any statement which expresses, "You'll never convince me otherwise," is inherently, and definitively fanatical.

If I'm misusing the word, I apologize.
If something else, you have my attention.

Cold, unbiased, provable, repeatable, irrefutable facts are compelling to me.

Do physicists feel differently?

There is no such thing as a scientific fact, or if there is, the "scientific" part makes it not a "fact" in the colloquial usage.

Nothing can be considered a scientific result unless it describes the means by which it can be shown it is false.

Newton said, paraphrasing, F = ma. Einstein showed that is definitely false, without special treatment of m, which Newton definitely did not say or mean to say.
So any assertion that F = ma and "nothing could convince me otherwise," is a perfectly unscientific statement.
No matter how true it seemed for a couple hundred years, eventually, more information came to light, and showed it was not true.

This is the exact difference between science and fanaticism.

[BananaStand]

Given that's perfectly non-insulting or offensive criticism of me, which came from spoonitnow of all people, I'll have to seek the truth in it.

I guess that means you're going to ignore what I'm about to say, but I know you'll read it anyway, so here ya go

Am I wrong about fanaticism?

Yes

I understand fanaticism as the adherence to a belief despite any and all contrary evidence which may or may eventually come to light.

No, the word you're looking for there is "faith". It's different.

As such, any statement which expresses, "You'll never convince me otherwise," is inherently, and definitively fanatical.

Is it fanatical to say "You'll never convince me that the sun won't rise in the east tomorrow morning?"

Is it fanatical to say "You'll never convince me that wiping my ass after shitting is less sanitary than not wiping"

Is it fanatical to say "You'll never convince me that Pepsi is not fucking delicious"

If so, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your hair-splitting, annoying, nerdy philosophy where science doesn't actually know anything, and nothing is actually true. I live in the real world, where for practical purposes, we throw out the possibility of events with an infinitesimally low likelihood.

If you wanna be a nerd about it, then I guess in some backwards, upside-down, parallel universe, I could be convinced that babies having babies and dropping out of high school has no impact on their long-term economic success. There....are you happy nerd??

If I'm misusing the word, I apologize.

How about you apologize for this ass-hole de-rail?? I mean, what's the point of this semantic douche-baggery??? We were having a nice discussion about politics and economics, and you came in here for no other reason than to shit on me.

There is no such thing as a scientific fact, or if there is, the "scientific" part makes it not a "fact" in the colloquial usage

I never used that term. But thanks for the lesson professor.

[Poopadoop]

Newton said, paraphrasing, F = ma. Einstein showed that is definitely false, without special treatment of m, which Newton definitely did not say or mean to say.
So any assertion that F = ma and "nothing could convince me otherwise," is a perfectly unscientific statement.
No matter how true it seemed for a couple hundred years, eventually, more information came to light, and showed it was not true.

How many beliefs do we currently hold that are untrue? In Banana's case it's obviously zero, but I'm speaking of scientific beliefs (or "Facts" if you will). I hazard it's a value close to 100%.

[spoonitnow]

Given that's perfectly non-insulting or offensive criticism of me, which came from spoonitnow of all people, I'll have to seek the truth in it.

Am I wrong about fanaticism? I understand fanaticism as the adherence to a belief despite any and all contrary evidence which may or may eventually come to light.

As such, any statement which expresses, "You'll never convince me otherwise," is inherently, and definitively fanatical.

Your misstep is on the word "belief." He doesn't believe it. He knows it. That makes it not subject to your definition of fanaticism.

For example, I believe you're a cuck, and there's nothing that could change my belief in that. That is fanaticism, in a completely hypothetical example.

[Poopadoop]

Your misstep is on the word "belief." He doesn't believe it. He knows it. That makes it not subject to your definition of fanaticism.

Nope the monkey is right. You don't 'know' anything, you only believe it.

Consider the 'knowledge' that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow. How do you know? Because it's always risen in the East? So, something that's always happened will always keep happening? Negative.

I think I had this argument with Ong once and he wasn't stoned enough to get it.

Or more to the point, consider the 'fact' that 'blah blah blah' (whatever Banana said about x). This is a 'fact' how? Because it was reported as such in some newspaper or even better, Fox? That don't make it a fact, it makes it information that Banana finds credible - not the same thing.

[spoonitnow]

Nope the monkey is right. You don't 'know' anything, you only believe it.

Consider the 'knowledge' that the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow. How do you know? Because it's always risen in the East? So, something that's always happened will always keep happening? Negative.

We don't know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. We know that it will rise in the east if the conditions do not change.

I think I had this argument with Ong once and he wasn't stoned enough to get it.

Excellent argument.

Or more to the point, consider the 'fact' that 'blah blah blah' (whatever Banana said about x). This is a 'fact' how? Because it was reported as such in some newspaper or even better, Fox? That don't make it a fact, it makes it information that Banana finds credible - not the same thing.

Sure thing snowflake.