ITT: Things that rustle your jimmies about humanity.

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595856]

- Militant Leftists with their Global Warming mantra. Shoving down environmental bullshit down our throats without doing any research themselves.
- The modern demonizing of the Catholic church and growing acceptance and cowtowing to muslim values. It won't be long before a 'prayer room' is installed in every public facility.
- This arrogant belief that science belongs to the left.
- This retarded idea that we should sacrifice economic progress for futile space exploration missions.
- Anthropology not being privately funded.
- Anytime somone says advanced math has no practical value.
(Pic related, it's the real solution to global warming).

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

[Anonymous No.4595859]

> - This arrogant belief that science belongs to the left.

A million times this.

[Anonymous No.4595861]

/pol/ tripfags.

[Anonymous No.4595862]

>>4595856
>Things that rustle your jimmies about humanity.
>Mention USA-centric things

[Anonymous No.4595865]

>>4595856

>Advanced Math
>Practical value
>Space Mirrors

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595866]

>>4595862
What exactly was 'USA centric' about my post? These things are just as relevant in every first world country.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

[Anonymous No.4595872]

>- The modern demonizing of the Catholic church and growing acceptance and cowtowing to muslim values. It won't be long before a 'prayer room' is installed in every public facility.
Sure is science in here.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4595874]

Okay I will make a list.

1. I heard a famous scientist say that all children are born natural scientists. wtf no they arent.

2. This tendency to think of something that makes sense, and then think therefore its true. Lots of things make sense, and almost all of them are wrong. Heck, sometimes the truth makes no sense.

3. The idea that the world will be a better place if we simply get more efficient, or if technology becomes more advanced. Efficiency alone doesnt do anything.

4. Scientists becoming dogmatic and arrogant

[Anonymous No.4595876]

>>4595866
People in Europe don't associate science with the left.
For some retarded reason, americans associate conservatism with right.
And conservatism is often the opposite of science.

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595877]

>>4595872
Maybe if you were old enough to go to college and witness these prayer rooms you would understand my point. Maybe if you had seen muslims who don't understand the theory of evolution somehow pass science courses and gain the qualifications necessary to teach in public schools, you might be a little upset.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

[Anonymous No.4595879]

>>4595866
>- Militant Leftists with their Global Warming mantra. Shoving down environmental bullshit down our throats without doing any research themselves.
USA-centric, in my country nobody is not pushing "environnemental bullshit" because the medias have an obligation to the truth by law.
>- The modern demonizing of the Catholic church and growing acceptance and cowtowing to muslim values. It won't be long before a 'prayer room' is installed in every public facility.
"Demonizing of the catholic church" ok, this one is not USA-centric, more like anglophone-centric
>- This arrogant belief that science belongs to the left.
USA-centric
>- This retarded idea that we should sacrifice economic progress for futile space exploration missions.
USA-centric, and when the budget for said space mission represent less than 1%... Who's retarded.
>- Anthropology not being privately funded.
Not USA-centric, but there is a reason for that. Political reason, but reason nonetheless. And it become less and less taboo to mention that niggers are inferior beasts anyway.
>- Anytime somone says advanced math has no practical value.
USA-centric.

[Anonymous No.4595881]

>>4595877
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't understand it, btw.
But it's still retarded, I'll give you that.

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595890]

>>4595876
I've lived in Germany for a year. Leftists over there sure make some significant claims to science. Is Germany European enough for you?

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

[Anonymous No.4595886]

>>4595874
>I heard a famous scientist say that all children are born natural scientists. wtf no they arent.
that was tyson, and its true. why wouldnt it be?

[Anonymous No.4595892]

>>4595879
>the medias have an obligation to the truth by law.
Only China and Iran are short sighted enough to have such rules.
Wtf man. Who determines the truth? The very institute that the media should report on.
>"Media control department is corrupt."
>Not true, you can't publish that.

[Anonymous No.4595893]

>>4595890
Such as? Not a german, but close.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4595895]

>>4595886

Oh, I read a quote from Lawrence Krauss saying that too.

Well... why would it be? Kids can believe stupid crap. Its not an inherent trait in kids to be impartial and to test hypotheses. I mean, if kids are natural scientists, than that suggests that science is hardwired into all human beings. And thats just clearly not true. I was reading about some native population in bolivia that has no word for any number greater than 3. The pursuit of knowledge, and the value in verifiable truth is not something that comes natural to human beings. We have to be taught and trained to be this way.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.4595900]

- libturds

- statists

- democrats

- like when i want to watch a movie or something and my brother wants to watch something else and my mom says "do what your brother says". that's gay

- athiesm. i mean why cant everyone just agree that angosticism is the only reasonable position?

- determinists HURRR I DONT BELIEVE IN FREE WILL IM SO EDGY DURRR

- when our cats get sick and barf all over the place. so grody man

- peopel who bash the phantom menace. get over it, nerds.

- altruism

[Anonymous No.4595901]

>>4595890
What I meant was, that americans often call secularism "left". Which is retarded.
Obviously, secularism has a claim on science, and religion does not.
If you are american, you say that the left claims science, whereas it was secularism that claimed science, and you're retarded enough to not see a difference.

[Anonymous No.4595903]

>>4595892
>Who determine the truth
I may have formulated it badly.
More like "fact-checking"?
"Journalistic integrity"?
"Can't say bullshit even if you quietly say it was bullshit later"?

[Anonymous No.4595906]

>>4595890
>Leftists over there sure make some significant claims to science.
Total bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4595910]

>>4595877
>Maybe if you were old enough to go to college and witness these prayer rooms you would understand my point.
And maybe if you actually had a point, you would be able to explain it properly instead of responding with this useless garbage.

Either way, take it to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4595912]

>>4595906
I think he's applying the retarded American definition of left, not the definition that germans (and other europeans) use of left.
He is butthurt that people claim that conservitards have no saying over science, but that the progressive strongly support science.

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595913]

>>4595906
"Total Bullshit"

Hey nice counter argument there. Here, have a donut.

[Anonymous No.4595915]

>>4595895
>>4595895
>I was reading about some native population in bolivia that has no word for any number greater than 3. The pursuit of knowledge, and the value in verifiable truth is not something that comes natural to human beings. We have to be taught and trained to be this way.

what does you being a racist bastard have to do with if children are natural scientists?

[Anonymous No.4595916]

>>4595913
>Hey nice counter argument there.
You're expecting a "counter argument" to an entirely baseless assertion? Lern2burden of proof, you dumb cunt.

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595919]

>>4595910
'Take it to /pol/'

Already have, and they seem far more capable of having a proper debate. I should have realised something was fishy about this board at this time of day when I read some of the content on the front page....

>noam chomsky

Ugh, I hate to greentext, but Noam fucking Chomsky. For /sci/entists you guys sure are stoopid.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

[Anonymous No.4595920]

>>4595913
>counter argument
That supposes an argument. Haven't seen one.

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595923]

>>4595915

At what part of his post gave you the impression he was a 'racist'. Because he said science isn't for everyone? Please read discussions with a little less bias and stop jumping to conclusions like the naughty little leftist you are.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4595924]

>>4595913

Argument? Sounds like a statement to me.

Not everything has to be an argument. I am going to put that as #5 on my list of jimmy rustling.

>>4595915

Racist? What? >Mon Visage

I am not acting like anyone is inferior here, it was an example of a primitive population being dumb on their own free will. Which I think demonstrates that value in truth is not a human trait. I recognize this about all people regardless of race. And even then I am not making a value statement about such values being superior of inferior.

I think you calling me racist just represents your own insecurity.

[Anonymous No.4595926]

>>4595919
>Already have, and they seem far more capable of having a proper debate.
Post science, or get the fuck out. No one cares about your ideological butthurt.

[Anonymous No.4595930]

im dissapointed that the right
can only frame arguments in a selfrighteous
context.
or as a reaction to some outside influence.

why not just state your values and be
proactive in your political projects?
(the left does this to, to a lesser degree.)

[Anonymous No.4595935]

4/10

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595936]

>>4595930
Please see my signiature provided below if you'd like to see some kind of 'mission statement'.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

[Anonymous No.4595938]

>The modern demonizing of the Catholic church and growing acceptance and cowtowing to muslim values.

Same shit and long overdue. The Roman cult created the radical false religion Islam to take control of the Arab lands. All important Islamic leaders are Islamic Shriner Freemasons making them subservient to the Jesuits.

It's either going to be Reformation II or WW3. The occult has never had a better strangle hold on politicians the world over and the military arsenals at their disposal.

Al Gore hails from the Club of Rome, they might be pushing a new age Paganism and Earth worship under the UN Earth Charter.

http://one-evil.org/

[Anonymous No.4595947]

>>4595938

[Anonymous No.4595951]

>This retarded idea that we should sacrifice economic progress for futile space exploration missions.

While I otherwise agree, I take issue with this statement. Space itself holds relativly little value, but the technology developed for space travel was one of the greatest economic drivers of the past few decades. Battery technology and computers are two examples of tech that benefited greatly from space exploration. Modern communications technology is highly dependent on satellites as is GPS.

[Anonymous No.4595958]

>>4595936
signature?
leave fag.

>>4595938
that some cool science you posted.
whats the goal of the conspiracy, friend?

[Anonymous No.4595964]

>>4595951
I must add (not samefag though) that why does scientific progress always need to bring profit in the first place.

[Reality Check !IG25rYg84c No.4595968]

>>4595951
Good point.

>>4595958
What issue do you take with me being a little bit different? Too much creativity for you? And obviously he's a troll, just ignore him.

"My reasoning is not 'politically incorrect'. Those who find my thoughts controversial and invalid are people who are anything but correct in the political environment." - Reality Check

[Anonymous No.4595977]

Neo-Luddites

BAWW SCIENCE IS EVIL, STOP PLAYING GOD

Death is too good for them

[Anonymous No.4595975]

>>4595951
>space has little value
>literally trillions of dollars worth of resources untapped
>possible new sites for colonization

Economics as it is is shit. The wealth based economy must be destroyed in favor of the resource based one.

[Anonymous No.4595976]

>>4595968
>What issue do you take with me being a little bit different?
... Are you serious?

...

A- Are you?

[Anonymous No.4595982]

>>4595968
why maintain an identity and redundantly include a sig on an anonymous board? do you type it out each time?

it makes you seem a poor fit for the format.
or some kind of egomaniac.

anon image boards are bullshit free by design.
why try to inject forum-style faggotry?
what do you stand to gain?

also, is blind rejection of "political correctness"
more intelligent than blind adherence?

what if political-correctness is a means, not an end?
powerful communicators avoid emotional language
that could turn an audience off to an otherwise
mutually beneficial proposal.

(please dont think this a defense of "political correctness"
im a big fan of sam harris, and that bro offends everyeone.
i think you are unintentionally guilty of strawmanning.)

[Anonymous No.4595986]

>>4595975
how about killowatthour backed currency?

[Anonymous No.4595988]

>>4595982
I don't like being politically correct when it doesn't suit me.
But I've noticed that people who rage against political correctness are usually butthurt idiots, who can't stand the fact that nobody takes the bullshit they keep spouting seriously. They think people don't listen because they're not politically correct. They don't realise that people aren't listening, because they aren't worth listening to.

[Anonymous No.4595990]

>>4595986
How about a currency that you can use to obtain resources, but also energy.
Like, I don't know... Money?

[Anonymous No.4595997]

Hey Anders, aren't you on trial in Norway right now?

[Anonymous No.4596000]

>>4595990
and how to value that money?
how many future-bux for a cheeseburger?

an arbitrary amount?

[Anonymous No.4596035]

Ok, here is my list.
A large fraction o liberals/progressives say that they are pro science even though a large fraction opposes GM food, dogmatically rejects nuclear power, greatly exaggerates global warming, and use alternative medicine.

[Anonymous No.4596042]

>>4596035
why not beef with contradictions and hypocrisies generally?

what have you gained in pointing out the flaws
of a group you likely dont count yourself among?

[Anonymous No.4596047]

>>4596042
I count myself among them. That is what makes me mad.

[Anonymous No.4596046]

>>4596000
The main options now are
1) Let it be determined by trade in markets
2) Let it be determined by bureaucrats

You can mix the two of course, with trade determining prices while controlling the overall money supply with bureaucracy. Which is basically what we're doing.

Really, the main issue is that anything that represents goods and services needs to change in the same way goods and services do. As wealth increases, money supply needs to as well.

[Anonymous No.4596057]

>>4596046
the market is arbitrary.

bureaucrats dont make decisions without a mind to the market.
what makes these discreet choices in your mind?
do markets exists without corporate/private bureaucrats? where?

>As wealth increases
im talking about *value* bro.
a dollar is paper.
when does paper get "market significance"? how?

[Anonymous No.4596063]

>>4596057
>the market is arbitrary.
No it's not. It reflects supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.4596067]

>>4596057
>arbitrary
You keep using that word. What do you think it means?

And are you seriously asking for me to explain how money works, and why it's so useful? I'll do it, if you're serious.

[Anonymous No.4596068]

>>4596047

why is the division left/right and not
results/feels?

let the newagers and conspiritards live
together in feels, lets create an results based
system/market.

our jobs are meritocracies but our
(ideally)
govts are feelocracies? why?

[Anonymous No.4596074]

>>4596057
>bureaucrats dont make decisions without a mind to the market.
Do you trust bureaucrats to know what you want? And further, even if you think they know what you want as well as you do, do you trust them to care about what you want as much as you do?

[Anonymous No.4596097]

>>4596074
>Do you trust bureaucrats to know what you want?
im saying they do.
i never said they were good at it.

whats the logical foundation for democracy again?
jk.

>do you trust them to care about what you want as much as you do?
i dont trust myself to want what is in my best interests.
everyone else is even worse at it than me.
with this in mind what hope is there for our future?
(obesity trends)

do you trust the choices of the ignorant and the chronically impoverished?
you shouldnt.
why is personal choice so cherished?
better than arbitrary forced choice? sure.
(false dilemma, friends)
but careful and rational analysis of well-being is better.
and who makes a cent promoting it?

[Anonymous No.4596110]

>>4595856
You are fucking retarded, and obviously have no future in science.

All your statements are pretty much bullshit, except for the last one. Next thing your gonna tell me that your a creationist! (That is how fucking stupid your views are)

LMFAO

[Anonymous No.4596114]

>>4596110
Congratulations, you are the cancer that is killing science.

[Anonymous No.4596115]

>>4596097
Oh yes, the ideal is to have the most intelligent and informed people act in perfect benevolence for the good of all society.

But you can't just achieve and ideal by identifying it. All that matters is the actual system you implement. And oligarchies don't tend to be populated by benevolent people, to say the least, to say nothing of the horrible track record of dictatorships.

So yeah, a perfectly competent, informed and benevolent dictator would be ideal. But that's not an option you can pick. And dictatorships far too often tend to produce huge amounts of waste, destruction, oppression, and suffering.

It's not that democratic principles are the most awesome thing ever - they have just tended to be important in preventing the worst case scenarios.

tl;dr the other options are worse.

[Anonymous No.4596116]

>>4595856
>catholic, global warming deiner (fucking retard), and conservative

You can't get any less science then that pal.
Its like you literally have no sense of logic or reason.

[Anonymous No.4596119]

>>4596097
>False dilemma:
>You make the choice
>Others make the choice
Technically speaking, it is a false dilemma, since it is also possible that the choice is never made, or that the choice is made randomly. I think those are both wore than the original two. Which other option do you suggest?

[Anonymous No.4596133]

>>4595856
>implying the right doesnt discourage and hate science

The right encourages people to be fucking dumb, and distrust science in favor of fucking magic.

90% of scientists are leftists. If you want conservatives, go to fucking /x/--->

[Anonymous No.4596136]

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with your view, OP.
Nice to see that there are a few rational people on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.4596144]

>>4595856
>claims to be into science
>support anit-science views

0/10

[Anonymous No.4596145]

>>4596133
Get out. People like you mixing up science and polititcs, while not knowing either of them, are the scum that permanently damages science's image in society.

[Anonymous No.4596147]

>>4596115

>Oh yes, the ideal is to have the most intelligent and informed people act ...
never suggested that.

>But you can't just achieve and ideal by identifying it.
never suggested that.

>So yeah, a perfectly competent, informed and benevolent dictator would be ideal.
never suggested that.

read what i write. not what you think im saying.
im not participating in the popular discourse.
im suggesting an alternative.

there is nothing to recommend individual choice.
there is even less to recommend anothers choice for you.

what is the state of decision science?
what do we know about how people choose?
what is threatened by this introspection?

what percent of gdp is spent on marketing?
has this risen over time?
what is it that marketers do?
they create demand where none would rationally exist.
what does this tell us about the choices we make?

do these questions make you uncomfortable? why?

do you know about how different classes spend and value money?
did you know that the poor outspend the rich?
what does this suggest?

[Anonymous No.4596149]

>>4596144
None of the views he supports is anti-science. Thanks for showing your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4596155]

>>4596147
>im suggesting an alternative.
No you're not. You're beating around the bush.

You're not being nearly as clear as you think you're being. Make a proposal.

[Anonymous No.4596159]

>>4596119
that a choice be made to achieve the best outcome
deterministically.

imagine that a computer program
given a sample of personal data
can determine the best choice 9/10 times
would you obey such a program?
why not?
(this is obvioulsy a thought experiment
what does it reveal?)

do you understand that im getting at
how we choose?

[Anonymous No.4596161]

>>4596149
>- Militant Leftists with their Global Warming mantra. Shoving down environmental bullshit down our throats without doing any research themselves.
Is this not anti science?
>- This retarded idea that we should sacrifice economic progress for futile space exploration missions.
And this?
>- Anthropology not being privately funded.
And this?
And this statement:
>- This arrogant belief that science belongs to the left.
Shows that he's a butthurt conservitard, who gets worked up over the fact that real scientists won't accept that the bible is a source of true and unquestionable information.

[Anonymous No.4596179]

>>4596155
1. that the act of "choice" is valued and culturally celebrated.
would you agree? is "individualism" celebrated?

2. what if choices were only as valued as their outcomes?
i think they presently arent.
do you agree?

3. close inspection of the process of how people
come to the decisions they do is perceived
as "unfeeling and with an eye to control".
do you agree?

4. what do you think about the percent gdp spent on marketing?
do you expect it to grow in the future?

does 4 cause the same discomfort as 3?
i suggest that for most it doesnt.
why is that?

are the answers to these question economic?
are they philosophical?

if moving money around is economics,
isnt the inspection of the processes involved also
economics?

[Anonymous No.4596180]

>>4596159
If it worked, I would.

No such system is currently possible. The information gathering is nearly impossible for this kind of centralization (how do you work the feedbacks on what people want)? And even when you've solved this problem, it's still a simple fact that this machine would have to be programmed with priorities.

On what basis does it decide what is right? What the people want? Or what the powers behind the design want? This system would just be an opportunity to centralize power, and we know what happens when we centralize power (corrupt oligarchies).

It will not be possible until we have strong AI. Basically, designing the perfect dictator, that can't be manipulated by power-corrupted bureaucrats.

[Anonymous No.4596181]

>>4596161
>>>- Militant Leftists with their Global Warming mantra. Shoving down environmental bullshit down our throats without doing any research themselves.
>Is this not anti science?
Ineed, showing environmental bullshit down others' throats without understanding any of the science behind global warming is anti-science. You confirm OP's view.

>>- This retarded idea that we should sacrifice economic progress for futile space exploration missions.
>And this?
This has nothing to do with science or anti-science. It's an economical statement. When deciding for how to fund science, there are priorities and space research has lower priority than other research.

>>>- Anthropology not being privately funded.
>And this?
See the point above.

>>- This arrogant belief that science belongs to the left.
>Shows that he's a butthurt conservitard, who gets worked up over the fact that real scientists won't accept that the bible is a source of true and unquestionable information.
No, it doesn't. It only shows that he is sick of leftist pseudo-intellectuals abusing science for political purposes.

[Anonymous No.4596185]

>>4596179
I only care about outcomes for people. I don't care what system we pick as long as it works well. But some systems are just worse than others in this regard. Command economies don't work when they are managed by humans, we've tried it before. And any program short of strong AI is still just being controlled by the same humans, through virtue of design.

Marketing shows that people are both good at manipulating, and easily manipulated. Including being persuaded to join political movements that put power in the hands of a few people that you have been persuaded to trust (like the Venus Project. Who's going to design this computer program again?).

And just as feedback, your style of conversation seems manipulative and condescending. It hurts your persuasiveness.

[Anonymous No.4596187]

>>4596181
>implying global warming isn't real
>implying space research did not and will not boost research and technology
>implying that the suggestion to take away funding for a type of research is not hindering that research
>implying that using science to control your agenda is not a good thing
piss off, go get a degree and learn how to think for yourself

[Anonymous No.4596190]

>>4596187
and stop watching faux news, it's not good for you

[Anonymous No.4596194]

>reality check
oh u

Your post was grade A trolling right up to the point when you said "militant leftist". After that the post was just so filled with Rush Limbaugh and Teaparty that not even the most fundamentalist rightwing christians would believe that you're not trolling.

That's why I can only give you a 0/10

[Anonymous No.4596195]

>>4596187
Are you retarded? Did you not understand what I posted?
Global warming is an important topic, but people spamming and flooding it everywhere without understanding it or without understanding science in general are cancerous.

[Anonymous No.4596196]

>>4596190
But what he's saying is completely opposite to the propaganda of fox news...

You know what? 0/10.

[Anonymous No.4596207]

>>4596180
>If it worked, I would.
thats the premise of the thought experiment.
you grant that it is true, thats the price of admission.

> No such system is currently possible.
where is the desire to create it?
shouldnt we be flooded with such ambition?

> The information gathering is nearly impossible for this kind of centralization
but isnt this the assumption for a group activity?
its what corporate actions claim to be based on.
where is the drvie to make these claims true?

>programmed with priorities.
that what a definition of "best outcome" is.
its a list of values by ranking.

>What the people want
do you agree that people seldom want what is in their best interest?
(health, long term financial stability, professional goals, etc)

>This system would just be an opportunity to centralize power
i havent proposed a system.
im inquiring into the nature of how we make choices.
at every turn i run into the narrative of big brother.

why cant we discuss creating a science of how decisions are made
without being accused of wanting to be big brother?

>Basically, designing the perfect dictator, that can't be manipulated by power-corrupted bureaucrats.

im not market-vs-bureaucrats.
im how do we make the choices we do.
quit piling your bogey men on me.

could you answer my questions in the previous post?

[Anonymous No.4596208]

>>4596187
Using science is not the same as abusing science. A scientist uses science. He makes a hypothesis, tests it, draws his conclusions and presents the results. A leftist greentard abuses science. He reads some incomplete pop sci news, doesn't even understand them, and then brags everywhere about how his opinions were backed up by science. Learn the difference.

[Anonymous No.4596211]

>>4596196
It was an addition to that post, not a response to it.
Lrn2reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.4596214]

>>4596187
Let's see how we should go about funding: Resources are limited. Money is limited. What's more important: Curing cancer and other diseases, solving the energy crisis or "hurr durr space romantic illusion aliens derp children dreamt of being astronaut"?

[Anonymous No.4596215]

>>4596208
Plenty of conservitards doing the same thing with climate skeptical papers.
It's not a left-right thing. You turn it into one because you are right wing.
I have always voted for a central party (not US citizen), and I tell you that the conservatives are a lot worse then the progressives.

[Anonymous No.4596217]

>>4596211
I know. And my post was addressing exactly this. Lrn2reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.4596218]

>>4595856

Quote = "I'm right and you're wrong if you disagree with me because i'm right"

[Anonymous No.4596220]

>>4596214
Nope.avi.jpg
The NASA budget costs aren't going to other science.
He said
>This retarded idea that we should sacrifice economic progress for futile space exploration missions
And not
>The idea that space exploration missions are the best way to advance science
If it were the latter, you'd be right. It isn't, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.4596222]

>>4596215
There are no "progressives". And take back your stupid tu quoque fallacy. Just because conservatives happen to abuse science as well, it's not okay for leftists to do the same. Abusing science should be a crime.

[Anonymous No.4596227]

>>4596207
>at every turn i run into the narrative of big brother.
Because it's a real problem that actually occurred over and over again in recent history.

If you let power centralize, the assholes will congregate and fuck everyone else over. It's human nature - we always have those assholes among us.

I did answer your questions, to the degree they are even coherently comprehensible. I'm cutting to the chase here, because your questions are pedantic and degrading. 1-3 were answered by
>I only care about outcomes for people. I don't care what system we pick as long as it works well.

And 4 was answered by
>Marketing shows that people are both good at manipulating, and easily manipulated. Including being persuaded to join political movements that put power in the hands of a few people that you have been persuaded to trust (like the Venus Project. Who's going to design this computer program again?).


Your style of posing questions is degradingly condescending. Stop it. I know exactly what you're saying, and you pretending to babystep me through thoughts you think you haven't revealed yet is just insulting.

[Anonymous No.4596230]

>>4596222
Why only pick one side as being wrong?
My point was and is (and I stated it clearly several times), that OP is a right-wing nut, and can't see his own fallacies.
I would have agreed with something along the lines of:
>Politicians quoting research out of context and/or funding biased research projects.
The fact that OP explicitely picked one side as being wrong, implies that he himself is biased; just to the other side.

[Anonymous No.4596232]

>>4596067
>arbitrary
ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective:
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

how does money get the value it has?
>makert supply/demand
so beany babies are popular, $ up
not popular, $ down
>yep
so its based on a perception of purchasing power
>yep
its not inherent in the product
it only exists in the mind?
>yep
and its not arbitrary?
>no, becuase other people believe in the fantasy too
oh so its true because everyone believes it!
like religion
>yep

[sage No.4596234]

>>4596195
The people that flood the stage with bullshit when it comes to global warming are the right-wing though.

The overwheamling majority of scientists, and scientific organizations recognize global warming is a fucking fact. The left wing tends to agree with them.

It is the right wing that disagrees. The right wing thinks there ignorance is more important that actual facts. And you get all these right-wingers with no scientifc training or even critical thinking skills trying to argue with scientists on scientific issues! Fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.4596238]

>>4596232
All value only exists in the mind. Nothing has value until humans say "I value this".

You're going to have to come to terms with this fact, no matter what economic system you favor.

[Anonymous No.4596239]

and its not arbitrary?
>no, because it responds to real effects, such as beany babies are popular
So it's not random, but has a any reason or system.
inb4
>hurr durr gold standard
pegging currencies to anything is almost always a bad idea

[Anonymous No.4596241]

Posting in a troll thread!

[Anonymous No.4596246]

>>4596230
OP being biased might be the case. I don't need to give a fuck about this. But (in my experience) there is a huge difference between the abuse of science by conservatists and leftists. When a conservatist abuses science and gets disproved, his reaction often is either repetition of the wrong or butthurt, i.e. deflecting or refusal to answer futher questions. When leftist on the other hand gets called out for abusing science, he makes up more shit and in disgustingly pseudo-intellectual manner comes up with further fallacies and harder abuse of science. Therefore in my opinion leftists are worse enemies to science than conservatists.

[Anonymous No.4596247]

>>4596234

lol doesn't understand that the right wing / left wing analogy has been disproved. In actuality its just another power scale in terms of who wields it

[Anonymous No.4596248]

>>4596234
Global warming being shown to happen is one thing. Most rational people accept it. But making up huge propaganda, spamming, flooding and bringing up non-sequiturs all the time is detrimental to everything science stands for.

[Anonymous No.4596251]

>>4596246

there is not such things as a left or right wing
come on man there playing you for a fool lol right wing does not mean Christian and left wing does not mean Atheist got it!

[Anonymous No.4596256]

>>4596248

You are exaggerating.
You are also underplaying the extent of denial coming from the right.

[Anonymous No.4596258]

>>4596246
OK, good for you.
But the left/progressive don't want to stop stemcell research because of the idea that cells have souls, or retarded shit like that. The right/conservative do.
The left/progressive do not want creation "science" to be taught alongside evolution in science class. The right/conservative do.
The left/progressive do not want religious ideas to overcloud science, the right/conservatives do.
Etc.

[Anonymous No.4596259]

>>4596251
I'm not amerifat, so I can't say how it is in your country. Where I live, there are way too many people explicitly calling themselves "leftists".

[Anonymous No.4596263]

>>4596259
> there are way too many people explicitly calling themselves "leftists".

Not him, but you need to keep in mind that these words can mean something very different depending on where you live. E.g. American left is European right/center etc.

[Anonymous No.4596265]

>>4596256
There is close to no denial. When being presented facts, rational people accept them. Don't take the few idiots who don't get it serious.
I did not exaggerate in my post. In my school I had geography classes. Their only topic was global warming. Every fucking year. Other more useful education was eradicated for the only purpose of propaganda. I mean it would be sufficient to teach it once, so everyone knows it happens and can draw his conclusions. But repeated spam is more than annoying.

[Anonymous No.4596271]

>>4596227

>If you let power centralize,
power and centralization are synonyms
they are not cause-effect
they are "raining" and "water-falling-from-sky"

>I only care about outcomes for people. I don't care what system we pick as long as it works well.
do you support evidence-based policies?
what are they?

>Your style of posing questions is degradingly condescending. Stop it. I know exactly what you're saying...
then why the "heres why power concentration is bad" tangent?

i dont want to be a pedantic ass. i know how this shit comes off.

why do people just play out the left/right script?
spouting the same talking points we hear everyday.
why do people feed the trolls? what do they think they are doing?

simply put:
why dont we value results over individual choice?
most people will agree that the average person is dumb fat and cowardly
and simultaneously defend those dumb fat choices.
how is the "power corrupts" narrative a response to my question?

consider this:
a tick is a reaction to unfamiliar stimulus.
rather than react to the stimulus a person goes through some
familiar and benign or harmful routine.

throwing left/right talking points around are like picking fingers.
the shit is plainly useless and repetitive. yet people devote time
to it, like a personal crusade. nothing could be sillier.

what does actually solving problems look like? would we even know?

[Anonymous No.4596272]

>>4596258
Well that must be an issue exclusively known to amerifats.

[Anonymous No.4596273]

>>4595856
>claims global warming is bullshit
>offers solutions for global warming

[Anonymous No.4596276]

>>4596272
>mfw I'm not even american

[Anonymous No.4596277]

>>4596265
>Don't take the few idiots who don't get it serious.

By "few idiots", I presume you are referring to the majority of American right, inducing most of the politicians and the "intellectual base" (think tanks, etc.)

[Anonymous No.4596278]

>>4596263
The "atheists" on this board, i.e. not real atheists but either underage full retards or trolls, seem to be very close to what is considered extreme leftist in europe. And alarmingly some of them seem to be serious.

[Anonymous No.4596282]

>>4596273
You didn't understand him. He doesn't say global warming is bullshit, he says people spamming global warming propaganda without giving a fuck about actual science are bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4596284]

>>4596278
> extreme leftist in europe

You mean communists?

[Anonymous No.4596285]

>>4596276
What other country does seriously consider creationism being taught in schools?

[Anonymous No.4596286]

>>4596282
Because still almost half the american population doesn't believe in global warming.
So it's not senseless spamming.

[Anonymous No.4596288]

ITT: Atheists can have your sci but leave x to us!

[Anonymous No.4596289]

>>4596239
>So it's not random, but has a any reason or system.

you can build a system on arbitrary choices.
that makes the system arbitrary.
its not a bad way to go. its just arbitrary.

is a person that lets a roll of dice make their choice
sillier than a person that lets their peers make their choice?
is one more arbitrary than another?

[Anonymous No.4596290]

>>4596284
No. Communists at least have an ideology. I mean pseudo-communists, anarchists, "pirates", etc.

[Anonymous No.4596292]

>>4596282

But the "Global Warming mantra" does not originate with "Militant Leftists"

[Anonymous No.4596293]

>>4596286
Then present the facts to them and not made up non sequiturs that have no basis in science anymore.

[Anonymous No.4596296]

>>4596290

Are you suggesting that Anarchism is not an ideology? (Or political philosophy, to be more precise)

[Anonymous No.4596297]

>>4596292
The people forcing it upon others are militant and most of them are associated with tending to the left wing.

[Anonymous No.4596299]

>>4596271
I'm not part of this left/right BS.

I do agree that results are all that matters. But giving centralizing power doesn't often produce good results - spreading it out seems to work better, at least for preventing the horrible worst-case scenarios we've seen in the past century.

Also, self-determination is just part of human happiness. Humans with no choices are not happy humans. But it's also true that humans with *too many* choices are not happy.
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

>how is the "power corrupts" narrative a response to my question?
It seemed that you were trying to shove me towards something like the Venus Project. Are you? If so, the "power concentration is bad" argument applies very strongly.

[Anonymous No.4596300]

>>4596296
No, it's not. At least not, when it's just incoherent babble by immature children and young adults who lack any form of higher education.

[Anonymous No.4596302]

>>4596297

What? People are forcing facts upon others?

The horror.

[Anonymous No.4596304]

>>4596300
>At least not, when it's just incoherent babble by immature children and young adults who lack any form of higher education.

And that applies solely to Anarchism?

[Anonymous No.4596305]

>>4596302
It's not facts, but opinions. And nothing should be forced upon anyone.

[Anonymous No.4596306]

>>4595977
They're welcome to stay on the dying planet when we leave for the stars

[Anonymous No.4596307]

>>4596304
It's one of their buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.4596309]

>>4596289
Are you equating self-determination with rolling dice?

I don't know about you, but I think there's a difference between choosing what to have for breakfast and having a random number generator choose for me. And both of those are different from having someone else choose what I get to have for breakfast.

I think you're still abusing this word "arbitrary". All human values are determined purely by humans - and in that sense, all human values are arbitrary. So?

[Anonymous No.4596313]

>>4596305

So all the leftists are wrong about global warming? Did you know that most scientists are center/left?

[Anonymous No.4596315]

>>4596307

You didn't answer my question.

[Anonymous No.4596318]

>>4596313
I did not say such thing. Please keep trolling out. Scientists are supposed to know how science works and to use it correctly. The problem are people who are uneducated in the matter of science, incompletely or wrongly understanding the facts, and yet claiming that their opinions which are largely unrelated to the scientific results were based on science. This is what we call "abuse" of science and it should be a punishable offense.

[Anonymous No.4596320]

>>4596315
Your question was idiotic. You know the answer.

[Anonymous No.4596323]

>>4596313
Any scientist worth his/her salt should be centrist, failing that they should not allow their political beliefs influence their research.

Ethics 101

[Anonymous No.4596325]

>>4596320

No I don't, please answer.

[Anonymous No.4596327]

Are you seriously quoting yourself?

Holy fuck, tripfags have inflated egos now more than ever.

Also, sacrificing economic progress for 'futile' space missions? Okay then, the world isn't all american.

[Anonymous No.4596328]

>>4596323
>"Center" means "unbiased and correct"
No.

[Anonymous No.4596329]

>>4596313
Real scientists keep politics out of science.

[Anonymous No.4596331]

>>4596318

But most people on the left get climate science *much* better then those on the right.

[Anonymous No.4596332]

>>4596325
Your question wasn't genuinely asking for an answer, but it had the intent of expressing your opinion. If you were a bit less autistic, you'd have read from my reply that I at least partially agree.

[Anonymous No.4596335]

>>4596331
Yet they still get it wrong and they abuse science much worse.

[Anonymous No.4596336]

>>4596323
>Any scientist worth his/her salt should be centrist

Spoken like a true communist (just replace "centrist" with "left")

Also this
>>4596328

[Anonymous No.4596338]

>>4596329

That doesn't mean they have no political persuasion.

[Anonymous No.4596339]

>>4596329
But they don't keep the science out of their politics, nor should they.

[Anonymous No.4596341]

>>4596338
>>4596339
Thank you for this valuable information know one would ever have thought of, Captain Obvious.

[Anonymous No.4596342]

>>4596332

So what was your point, then? Why are you so alarmed by uneducated anarchists? There are much worse political undercurrents in Europe in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4596344]

>>4596341
Some people seem to overlook the distinction.

[Anonymous No.4596345]

>>4596335

What can be worse than outright denial and conspiracy theories?

[Anonymous No.4596347]

>>4596342
Because I value people by their intellect. Having a coherent ideology (even if it has some flaws) is in my opinion of higher value than completely uneducated childish babble.

[Anonymous No.4596346]

Why don't we allow scientists and engineers run the government guys? They can't possibly do a worse job than lawyers.

[Anonymous No.4596350]

>>4596346

Then tell them to run for political functions.

[Anonymous No.4596351]

>>4596346
Let them run the banks first, then they control the government.

[Anonymous No.4596352]

>>4596344
No, it's just you. It's okay, we accept "special" people here.

[Anonymous No.4596354]

>>4596346
Because the voters would rather elect people with money for advertising and smooth talking skills to convince people "I'm like you".

Basically, because people don't value science, because people are gullible, and because they only trust people that they feel are "like them".

[Anonymous No.4596355]

>>4596350
Some do, tend not to be elected though

[Anonymous No.4596356]

>>4596347

So, for example, a neo-nazi with a coherent ideology is better than an uneducated anarchist?

[Anonymous No.4596358]

>>4596345
Outright denial and conspiracy theories are just insane / retarded. Those people are just not to be taken serious. Much worse are people who want to deceive others into taking them serious, while abusing science to the max.

[Anonymous No.4596360]

>>4596355

Then tell them to make more money first.

[Anonymous No.4596364]

>>4595856
generally, if you are intelligent and NOT rich, then you should desire as few laws as reasonably possible.
Why, you may ask?
It's because those laws only apply to YOU.
Wealthy people pretty much get to do whatever they want anyway, in every nation in the world. And if they can't possibly do it there, then they can go visit somewhere else to get to do it. And by strange coincidence, it is typically rather wealthy people who end up running governments.

This isn't a call for class warfare or anarchy, but just a reminder that when a government official says that a law is "necessary", he is talking about stopping YOU from doing something that HE doesn't like. It is highly unlikely that this law will ever impede anything he wants to do, even if he wants to do it to you.

Power is relative; you can't have a lot of it unless everyone else around you doesn't have any of it.

[Anonymous No.4596366]

>>4596356
Nazism had fantastic social programs, brought Germany out of the depression and made it a production power.

Sans the racial purity thing there was nothing wrong with Nazism

[Anonymous No.4596367]

>>4596358
>Those people are just not to be taken serious

Even if they run the country?

[Anonymous No.4596371]

>>4596356
Well yes. Of course I'll dislike both. One of them I'll dislike for his political view, the other I'll dislike for his idiocy. The latter is worse in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4596372]

>>4596366

oooh, now we're getting somewhere!

[Anonymous No.4596373]

>>4596367
They don't. Goldman Sachs runs the country.

[Anonymous No.4596379]

>>4596377
Yeah whatever. You know what I meant.

[Anonymous No.4596377]

>>4596373

Nope, they have to share.

[Anonymous No.4596382]

>>4596371

Well, I disagree, so let's leave it at that.

However,
coherent != not an idiot

[Anonymous No.4596385]

>>4596379

Yes I do. Still, if people in power believe in conspiracy theories, they should be taken seriously, no? (the people, not the conspiracy theories).

[Anonymous No.4596387]

>>4596385
They are not taken seriously and they shouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.4596388]

>>4596382
>coherent != not an idiot

I know and I never implied that. I just said that incoherence implies stupidity.

[Anonymous No.4596389]

>>4596299
yea man
i didnt intend to suggest you were.
i was commenting on the ocean of fools that surround us.

>But giving centralizing power...
why is this a proper response to the things i say?
is centralizing power implied in a results-focused decision?
ive heard of this bogeyman, what does it have to do with
what i say? i dont see any connection.

>self-determination is just part of human happiness
how does results-first decision making threaten
self-determination?

imagine this analogy:
people presently make sex-based decisions.
they only make choices that promote sexual behavior
>right
people should widen the scope of how they make decisions
and consider other factors
>but sex makes me happy, why do you hate sex?
i dont hate sex, but there are other things you enjoy besides sex, right
>yea
so think of them when you consider your choices
>we gotta sex hater over here

replace "sex hater" with "bureaucrats making our choices"
i never suggested that bureaucrats should make our choices.
i suggested a different set of goals for our individual choices.
you follow me?

>Venus Project
nah bro. that seems like leftist utopian dream with buzzwords.
not for me. im talking about personal choice making. not wider political shit.

[Anonymous No.4596390]

These leftists not only abuse science when it comes to but when it comes to medicine there is a huge industry of alternative medicine, specially in Europe. Also when it comes to energy they dogmatically oppose nuclear power. These beliefs are not as fringe as we would like to think.

[Anonymous No.4596395]

>>4596387
>They are not taken seriously

Well, since they write the laws, you sort of have to.

[Anonymous No.4596398]

>>4596309
>Are you equating self-determination with rolling dice?
im not suggesting equivalency.
im asking questions about how people choose from alternatives.

at any time your alternatives are drawn from culture.
>choosing what to have for breakfast
statistically you and your neighbors are more likely to make the same choice
that someone countries away.
your choices come to you loaded. some more attractive, reasonable than others.
some things are priced out of daily range, some dietarily bad choices.
some traditional. those are the reflections of culture.

im not suggesting that others (human or computer) make your choices for you.
i have never done that. thats all people want to discuss though.

>and in that sense, all human values are arbitrary. So?
that was my point. i was responding to someone suggesting objective fixed value.

[Dsen12 No.4596396]

ITS THESE LIBERALS WIT DER LIBERAL MEDIA

GD THESE LIBERALS

[Anonymous No.4596397]

>>4596395
Then show me a law that includes a conspiracy theory. Otherwise it seems to me that you are mixing up unrelated things.

[Anonymous No.4596402]

>>4596397
oklahoma passed a law barring sharia law
cuz oklahoma is overran with muslims

[Anonymous No.4596403]

>>4596390
All major political parties are anti-science when it doesn't fit in with their beliefs.

Stupid people keep voting in McGuinty up here, he's vehemently opposed to Nuclear power and wants to spend money putting wind farms where they aren't viable. Shit sucks

[Anonymous No.4596404]

>>4596388

>I never implied that

Yes you did, you said that having a coherent ideology is better than being uneducated.

[Anonymous No.4596411]

>>4596402
Does "barring" mean they forbid sharia law? Then I see nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.4596414]

>>4596402
>oklahoma is overran with muslims
Is it UK 2.0 yet?

[Anonymous No.4596415]

>>4596397

The opposition to clean energy initiatives is partially based on conspiracy theories (about global warming, united nations, funding of businesses, etc.)

[Anonymous No.4596416]

>>4596404
How do you come to that conclusion? Both seem unrelated to me. Your reasoning is not logical.

[Anonymous No.4596418]

>>4596415
No, it's based on politics and economics.

[Anonymous No.4596425]

>>4596416

Are you the person who wrote this?

>Having a coherent ideology (even if it has some flaws) is in my opinion of higher value than completely uneducated childish babble.

[Anonymous No.4596429]

>>4595862
this

9/10 well played OP

for a serious response
-the belief that borders are immovable and eternal, that they are more than just lines drawn in the sand.

Particularly when it comes to europe, this tribalistic mindset is so ingrained and indoctrinated. We must have pride in our country, its better than others. We must have pride in our village/city, its better than the others. etc. etc.

I do not wish for us to be all the same and monotonous, but damn, cant we start uniting into a united regions of europe aready? Or take steps in that direction, like ID cards that have the same format, similar immigration and election policies, etc.

[Anonymous No.4596426]

>>4596411
yea man the law is fine.
(provided is curtails similar intrusions of other religions
catholics arent as extreme as muslims, but still
a protection from a crime should be religion agnostic, 1st amend. and all)

but its a response to an imagined threat.
"the muslim takeover of america!"

>skullfucking is illegal
who tried to bury up a corpse and fuck its skull?
>no one
then who does this protect?
>we got a skull fucker over here

its just a way to cast yourself as "tough on <shit you hate>"
without actually improving anyones life.

aka conspiracy theories.

they asked, you dig?

[Anonymous No.4596432]

>>4596418

yes, and it's also based on conspiracy theories, e.g.

-global warming is a hoax
-the administration wants to funnel government money to their friends
-international agreements will undermine the sovereignty of the country
etc.

[Anonymous No.4596435]

>>4596425
>- Militant Leftists with their Global Warming mantra. S

but all (97%) of scientists agree on the issue of anthropomorphic global warming and all (95%) of economists agree to the negative effects it will have on output in the net 100 years.

go read some serious reviews, even the Stern Review which was supermoderate is bad enough

only scientists that disagree are funded by Koch industries, the oil conglomerates and other corp interests

[Anonymous No.4596436]

>>4596425
Yes, I am. The greeentext quote displays an opinion of mine. You can't infer factual causal connections from it.

[Anonymous No.4596437]

>>4596414
oklahoma is not exactly inviting.
to anyone. ever.

[Anonymous No.4596438]

>>4596435

You are correct, but you replying to a wrong person.

[Anonymous No.4596441]

>>4596432
This is the bullshit some idiots spout, but for sure none of this is seriously among the reasons for the decisions about a law.

[Anonymous No.4596443]

>>4596436

But you wrote exactly what I said you did!

[Anonymous No.4596445]

>>4596435
Do you see what you did there? You summed it up in two sentences. More doesn't need to be said about the issue. Huge propaganda and spam are not necessary.

[Anonymous No.4596446]

>>4596441
>but for sure none of this is seriously among the reasons for the decisions about a law.

How do you know that? I mean, if I believed that global warming is a liberal hoax, I wouldn't be exactly motivated to do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.4596447]

>>4596438

oops haha meant to reply to OP

[Anonymous No.4596448]

>>4596443
No, I didn't and I don't see how you can misunderstand my post so badly.

[Anonymous No.4596450]

>>4596448

Then explain the difference between our two posts.

[Anonymous No.4596452]

>>4596446
Sure, but that's unrelated.

[Anonymous No.4596455]

I like how conservatives pretend that they have a legitimate political ideology, but they reject reality because of a paranoid belief that much of the rest of the country is trying to sabotage it for the sake of some evil secret agenda.

[Anonymous No.4596456]

>>4596452
>Sure, but that's unrelated.

Again, how do you know that?

[Anonymous No.4596461]

>>4596450
In one post I said that I value coherence over incoherence. In the other I said that incoherence implies stupidity.

[Anonymous No.4596464]

>>4596456
I don't see what you're on about right now.

[Anonymous No.4596468]

>>4596464

How do you know that people's beliefs about global warming do not factor into their political decisions about global warming?

[Anonymous No.4596470]

>>4596468
They do, but that's unrelated to your initial point. You said political decisions were made on the basis of conspiracy theories. Ignorance is not a conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.4596472]

>>4596461

But why is coherent uneducated babble more valuable that incoherent one?

[Anonymous No.4596474]

>ITT: Things that rustle your jimmies about humanity

Oh, this looks like an interesting thread.

> Militant Leftis—

>>>/pol/.

[Anonymous No.4596475]

>>4596472
That's my opinion. Don't you try to argue about opinions as if they were facts.

[Anonymous No.4596476]

>>4596470

Global warming is a hoax = conspiracy theory. How do you know that does not factor into decisions.

[Anonymous No.4596479]

>>4596476
"Global waming is a hoax" is not a conspiracy theory. It's a bad excuse for not having to say the truth, i.e. economical reasons for ignoring global warming.

[Anonymous No.4596480]

>>4596475

But you never explained why do you think so.

[Anonymous No.4596485]

>>4596480
Why should I?

[Anonymous No.4596486]

>>4596479
>"Global waming is a hoax" is not a conspiracy theory.

How is it not a conspiracy theory? Do you even know what these people believe?

[Anonymous No.4596487]

>>4596486
Most of them spout it without believing it.

[Anonymous No.4596489]

"The world will end soon anyway, so it is disrespectful to God to make long-term plans here" - this is what convervatards actually believe

[Anonymous No.4596490]

>>4596485

Well, I'd like to know why do you prefer the "coherent" neo-nazi, regardless of whether he's an idiot or not.

[Anonymous No.4596492]

>>4596487

Again, how do you know that?

[Anonymous No.4596496]

>>4596490
It has its reasons in my social and psychological development in my childhood. None of your business.

[Anonymous No.4596498]

>>4596492
How do you "know"? What's "knowing" anyways?

[Anonymous No.4596503]

>>4596498

Well, did some of them tell you that they don't actually believe the stuff? Or something like that.

[Anonymous No.4596506]

>>4596496

uh, okay

[Anonymous No.4596508]

My opinion is special and doesn't need to be supported by anything and if you disagree with me then you are a meanie!

[Anonymous No.4596509]

>>4596503
Okay you're right. I don't say this because you convinced me, I am just tired of this tedious debate.

[Anonymous No.4596512]

>>4596508
>summing up /sci/ in one post

[Anonymous No.4596544]

>>4595877
we have no prayer rooms at our universities here. Dettle down, you are fucking ridiculing yourself.