Capitalism Rules, Socialism and Communism Suck Thread

[MadMojoMonkey]

Honestly dude, all you did there was give yourself a finger-workout. I'm not here to split ball hairs with you over definitions or have a philosophical discussions with you about the purpose of science. What I am telling you is that it flat out doesn't fucking matter what a "consensus" of scientists say. 1) they're often wrong and 2) who defines what a "consensus" is.

Just can't help yourself from moving the goalpost, can you, you silly goose?

You remember that thing you just said?
"Science isn't determined by consensus," you said.
"That's exactly how science is determined." I replied.
"WRONG Science = reality & truth. Not what some artificially credentialed human beings *think* is reality and truth." you continued.

Remember?

As to the question, I specifically answered that in the prior post you maybe scanned and told yourself you perfectly understood. The point is to distrust scientists, but to trust in your own ability to understand what they've done and if you can't find fault in it, then you begrudginly accept it.

Stop trusting sound bites about science. If scientific discoveries were simple enough to explain in a sound bite or a 30 minute show that covers lots of topics, then it wouldn't have required a team of researchers months to do it. Anyone attempting to do so has another agenda. IDK what the range of agendas that could encompass, but their primary intent is not to deliver an accurate assessment of their findings to intelligent, but uninformed people.

If you weren't such a petulant teenager and watched the video for ten goddamn seconds, you'd see that the "consensus" is really just a few dozen people. Someone found a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of scientists and 97% of them said "ZOMG". That's not a consensus. That's a narrow and biased observation play-dough-ed into a political talking point.

I'm not interested in whatever nonsense you pretend is evidence of anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated and now properly admitted that you are not making rational arguments, but irrational ones. You pick and choose your data to support whatever conclusions you like.

You're not making intelligent arguments. You're making intelligent-sounding arguments. The difference is that the latter is just your opinion, which you're perfectly entitled to. I'm not trying to change any irrational opinions of anyone 'cause that's a perfect waste of time.

My position is the polar opposite of petulant teenager. It's not "uncool" to click your links. It's intellectually vapid.

@ bold: BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA.
So my point holds and you're arguing anyway. See? Irrational.
Those people are not reliable witnesses... 'cause people are not reliable witnesses. Stop putting trust in sound bites. Look at their methods, and see if you can find fault.

See posts 522 and 523. How many times does science get to be wrong before I get to stop believing you and not be called crazy?

The fact that you don't understand what science is or the goals of science is a totally separate issue from the fact that you are not a rational thinker. Well... I mean the latter probably significantly contributes to the former.