/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4974301]

/sci/ how do we get rid of the anti-science libtards? They are destroying scientific advancement and research.

[Anonymous No.4974306]

You're insane.
The Liberals and Democrats are the ones who want more research and science.

Conservatives and Republicans only want more business opportunities.

Liberals are not against science -- and if you side with conservatives, YOU ARE!

[Anonymous No.4974307]

>>4974306
>liberal propaganda
Liberals do not want to go to space. Liberals do not want private research. Liberals do not want science.

How hard is this for you to understand?

[Anonymous No.4974308]

But art, subtle multiculturalism and religions is important

[Carl No.4974309]

better education and eugenics

[Anonymous No.4974316]

>/sci/ how do we get rid of the anti-science libtards? They are destroying scientific advancement and research.
>Post picture of the biggest liberal hippie science-lover in history

[Anonymous No.4974318]

>>4974316
Sagan was liberal when the left wing was good

Now it's shit

[Anonymous No.4974322]

You are aware most scientists are liberals right?

[Anonymous No.4974325]

>>4974322
Libtard scientists are against themselves

[Carl No.4974328]

>>4974322
Nope.

[Anonymous No.4974329]

Liberals are not the ones opposing scientific facts and researching treatments for diseases because its against religion.

[Anonymous No.4974334]

>>4974329
>suffers a severe case of liberal bias

[Anonymous No.4974339]

>>4974334
You need to get better at this trolling thing. Religious conservatives oppose scientific research that disagrees with their beliefs even if this research will save or improve millions of lives. Do you really think anybody will believe a mindset that discourages new ideas and change will be better for science?

[Anonymous No.4974341]

>>4974318
>Sagan was liberal when the left wing was good

So how did liberalism change within the last 16 years for the worse?

[Anonymous No.4974344]

>mfw american politics

[Anonymous No.4974349]

If you actually have a some specific examples, please tell us. This lame discussion can go nowhere if you don't have a point.

>>4974328
>Powerful argument.

[Anonymous No.4974351]

>>4974339
>implying religious conservatives are the only conservatives
0/100

[Anonymous No.4974347]

>>4974307
I'm a liberal, and I'm for those things.
My grandfather is a liberal, and he spent decades as a field biologist and professor.
I think your sweeping generalizations and unsupported statements may be some kind of coping mechanism for dealing with the rampant stupidity in your own party, (or just a trolling attempt of the worst kind - the "hurr durr I'm only pretending to be stupid" kind).

[Anonymous No.4974353]

>>4974328

Carl: You are posting on 4chan.. you do NOT know most scientists personally... check the Demographics of the LAST FUCKING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

[Anonymous No.4974358]

why is /sci/ falling for this obvious troll thread? I thought you guys were intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.4974359]

>>4974353
Obama is against science and space exploration.

[Carl No.4974356]

>>4974353
I know all of them personally and none is a libtard. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.4974357]

[Carl No.4974362]

>>4974358
>/sci/
>intellectuals

oh summer

[Anonymous No.4974364]

>>4974351
>implying religious conservatives aren't a large enough majority that Republican presidential nominees will say they don't believe evolution is true
>YOUR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES FEEL OBLIGATED TO SAY THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS ACCURATE
>WHY ARE WE STILL BELABORING THIS? YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY TROLLING!

[Anonymous No.4974365]

>>4974357
>more biased liberal propaganda
You fuckers cannot even get racial intelligence right. You discredit evolution.

[Anonymous No.4974366]

>>4974359
Obama is not a 'liberal', by most standards he is barely left wing. You Americans have a centrist and a far right party.

[Anonymous No.4974367]

>>4974359
>ACCEPT MY CLAIMS
If you have something to say be specific because this kind of shit gets us nowhere.

[Anonymous No.4974371]

>>4974365
>More irrelevant and baseless claims.

[Anonymous No.4974372]

>>4974364
Prove to me that conservatives will do less for science than liberals

[Carl No.4974373]

>>4974364
Not believing in the theory of evolution is not a matter of being religious. Many scientists are naturally skeptic.

[Anonymous No.4974370]

The biggest scientific weakness of the left is when it comes to matters of human nature. A large segment of them are in complete denial about the biological influence on behavior, especially when it comes to individual and group differences. Sagan was guilty of this to an extent too. This is a major issue, especially considering that this form of anti-scientific denialism still has a great deal of influence amongst our elite institutions, unlike superstitions like creationism which are thankfully widely ridiculed amongst the elites.

[Anonymous No.4974381]

>>4974370
I suppose you posted Watson because he's one of the few scientists who believe the /pol/ crap? It's like Newton and alchemy. Just because someone who made incredible contributions to science believes it doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.4974383]

>>4974373
Except religious belief is the only reason not to believe in evolution, not believing in evolution is the same as saying gravity does not exist. Its idiotic and completely contradicts everything known about the natural world.

[Anonymous No.4974384]

>>4974381
>liberal bias
Political parties cannot be equated with pseudoscience.

[Carl No.4974386]

>>4974383
Noep.

Only microevolution is fact.

[Anonymous No.4974390]

>>4974384
>hurr durr
I can equate silly beliefs with silly beliefs, can't I?

[Anonymous No.4974392]

>>4974372
You're the one claiming something that flies in the face of accepted fact. YOU prove your point, first.

>>4974373
I think you might be mentally disabled.

[Anonymous No.4974395]

>>4974383
>hurr durr
You accept evidence. There is no belief.

You do not understand science, so I can only figure you're a fucking liberal

[Anonymous No.4974399]

>>4974381
>I suppose you posted Watson because he's one of the few scientists who believe the /pol/ crap?

If by "/pol/ crap", you mean the recognition that there are group differences in genotypic cognitive ability, then you would be wrong in suggesting he is one of only few scientists. As far as behavioral geneticists and psychometricians who specialize in the study of cognitive ability are concerned, such a view is mainstream. This has been established by Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman's survey of such experts.

[Anonymous No.4974403]

>>4974395
>He doesn't understand the difference between belief and faith.

[Anonymous No.4974405]

>>4974392
>us_elections_2004[1].png

People still believe in this hoax?

[Anonymous No.4974408]

>>4974405
Why not? They've believed in it for the last 200 years, or so.

[Anonymous No.4974411]

>>4974392
Conservatives want Mars exploration and a permanent moon base

Libtards killed SETI and cut NASA/private research funding because they can't tax space or scientific research.

[Anonymous No.4974412]

>>4974306
>Liberals are not against science -- and if you side with conservatives, YOU ARE!
Self-identified leftists cannot into evolution+humans. They deny sex differences, population differences, heritability of traits. They are just like creationists, insisting that humans are special, and not like the other animals.

[Carl No.4974413]

>>4974392
Why do you insult me? Are you out of arguments? Are you emotionally distressed because you can't rationalize your silly beliefs anymore? Cry harder.

[Anonymous No.4974415]

>>4974403
>he posts infantile cartoons and "believes" in evolution

[Anonymous No.4974420]

>>4974413
No, it's because you responded to my post in a manner that suggested you missed the point entirely, which is something retarded people tend to do.

Oh look, you did it again.

[Anonymous No.4974419]

>>4974405
Yes, but the real data support it as well.

http://buggery.org/2008/11/19/us-election-results-by-iq/

[Anonymous No.4974423]

>>4974399
>The Racial IQ gap is proven and undeniable.
>The political left/right IQ gap is liberal bias.

[Anonymous No.4974427]

>>4974419
>edgy blog by an edgy liberal
cool scientific source brah

[Anonymous No.4974429]

>generalizing an entire category of people based on some shitty meme you saw
>implying i'm not a liberal
>implying i'm not an electrical engineer
>implying there isn't liberal dumbfucks that i also hate
>implying right wing is any better at all
>implying this thread isn't fucking retarded
>implying you shouldn't go back to >>>/pol/

[Carl No.4974430]

>>4974420
Let me summarize your idiocy: Just because you in your very limited mental capacities fail to even remotely understand what I'm posting (although I already keep it as simple as possible), you dismiss it as "retarded".
Please go on. You are amusing.

[Anonymous No.4974433]

>>4974429
How are you enjoying sucking that liberal cock?

[Anonymous No.4974439]

>>4974433
It's closer to socialism, actually, but you probably don't know the difference. No cock involved, either. Wasn't there a study that showed there was an extremely high amount of repressed gays in the right wing?

[Anonymous No.4974445]

>>4974399
Cool. Never heard of that study. Too bad it's so old. Any up to date study?

I'm not surprised about the results though. Many clever people accept that differences between groups are partly genetic, they just don't say it.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

[Anonymous No.4974447]

>>4974439
>engineer pretends to not be homosexual

[Anonymous No.4974453]

>>4974430
>I'm not retarded!
>YOU'RE retarded!
Great comeback, champ.

>>4974415
Actually, the post you're replying to, the one that replied to you, isn't by the same poster you posted to respond to: I'm >>4974364
You'll notice the language I used here avoids "belief in evolution".
>infantile cartoons
Motherfucker, look where you are.

[Anonymous No.4974455]

>>4974445
Phillipe J. Rushton

[Anonymous No.4974456]

>>4974423
>The Racial IQ gap is proven and undeniable.

We have 100 years of fairly consistent psychometric data on it.

>The political left/right IQ gap is liberal bias.

The data on IQ and political affiliation is more limited and inconsistent. For instance the GSS WORDSUM data on Republicans and Democrats in the United States show a slight Republican advantage. Ian Deary's longitudinal study in the UK of kids tested at 11 years old showed that those who grew up into BNP voters did poorly, while the left-wing voters did well. Heiner Rindermann, et al's study in Brazil found those with center-right political views had the highest IQ's. All and all, by the looks of it differences in IQ between political groups seem to be more greatly influenced by particular socio-cultural circumstances than IQ differences between racial groups.

[♥not★faggot♥ No.4974459]

>>4974307
I want to go to space ;_;

[Carl No.4974462]

>>4974453
Stating facts is always a good comeback. ;)
I'm not the one who had to bring up childish ad hominems in the first place btw.
Insecure much?

[Anonymous No.4974460]

>>4974453
Stating facts is always a good comeback. ;)
I'm not the one who had to bring up childish ad hominems in the first place btw.
Insecure much?

[Anonymous No.4974463]

>>4974456
>For instance the GSS WORDSUM data on Republicans and Democrats in the United States show a slight Republican advantage.

No it doesn't. Liberals are smarter in the US using WORDSUM data, and also using other proxies such as by degree.

[Anonymous No.4974467]

>>4974453
>Motherfucker, look where you are.
we are on /sci/ where infantile cartoons are not allowed. fuck off back to an infantile board

[Anonymous No.4974470]

>>4974455
Rushton clearly states it, so does Jensen, Gottfredson, Nyborg, Lynn, Nyborg.

[Anonymous No.4974476]

>>4974456
>For instance the GSS WORDSUM data on Republicans and Democrats in the United States show a slight Republican advantage.

>>4974463
>No it doesn't.

Sigh:

http://anepigone.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/iq-wars-mccains-voters-win.html

[Anonymous No.4974480]

I'm somewhat liberal, but there is a significant fraction on liberals who believe in a lot of psaudoscience. For example: alternative medicine, opposition to GMOs, antivaxxers, organic food, anti nuclear, and homeopathy. You know, greenies. This fraction is not fringe and can't be ignored. What do cons have? Creationists and GW deniers?

[Anonymous No.4974481]

>libtards stop science

Where do you even start with this? Conservative schools teaching creationism over evolution and standard science curriculum? Kanas conservative activists actually changing the legal definition of science there to include supernatural explanations? Defunding research under Bush for eight long years? Fox news and other fascists openly mocking intellectualism and ridiculing science for being too hard? This is an emphatic GTFO OP. seriously, >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4974485]

>>4974480
How about the significant majority of conservatives that believe in pseudo-science? The entire family values platform is predicated upon Christian theocracy and the suppression of education.

[Anonymous No.4974486]

>>4974481
>dat obnoxious liberal bias

[Anonymous No.4974496]

>>4974373

Scientist.... BELIEVE in... theory....

ahahahahahahahahha!!!

confirmed for Dumbass...

[Anonymous No.4974497]

>>4974456
>GSS WORDSUM
10 vocabularly questions does not make an IQ test.

You're doing the exact thing you hate on so much, try to make it look disputed. repulican/democrat isn't right/left.

[Anonymous No.4974499]

Both parties or sides have selective denial of science. they like only what agrees with their ideology. Thay love cimate science but hate genetic engineering. Ask an average liberal about nuclear energy and see what he thinks.

[Carl No.4974502]

>>4974496
Exactly, that's what I was saying. Scientists have no reason to accept something out of faith alone. Some do, others don't.

[Anonymous No.4974505]

>>4974307
Liberals-meaning Obama-made cuts in the space program pursuant to an austerity program that is being championed to the EXTREME by the right wing. Cutting is something they usually support, but of course in their 1984 world of politics, Big Brother can change his mind in an instant no matter how inconsistent his message is with what it was prior to the new proclaimation. So here, "yah austerity," liberal undertakes austerity measure, so "boo austerity." So full of shit it blows my mind.

[Anonymous No.4974506]

>>4974485
I'm not denying that, in fact they are more numerous, but the liberal pseudoscience can't be ignored.

[Anonymous No.4974516]

>>4974476
> Suspicious analysis is suspicious.

>- The x-axis is a WORDSUM category, ranging from 0 to 10
>- The y-axis is the percent of a given demographic class who received that score.


>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/verbal-intelligence-by-demographic/#more-16279

[Anonymous No.4974523]

>>4974505
I don't know which side your post is supporting but Obama tried to increase NASA's budget as he did before but the republican house stopped it and forced a cut.

[Anonymous No.4974529]

>>4974497
>10 vocabularly questions does not make an IQ test.

It is a crude IQ test.

>You're doing the exact thing you hate on so much, try to make it look disputed.

It isn't disputed? What proof do you have of a scientific consensus of IQ and political affiliation?

>repulican/democrat isn't right/left.

The relationship between political affiliation and party affiliation is pretty strong.

[Anonymous No.4974531]

The overwhelming majority of scientists are liberal and moderate.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

[Anonymous No.4974556]

>>4974529
>It is a crude IQ test.
The correlation between scores is only 0.71. The error of margin will be larger than that result.

[Anonymous No.4974557]

Most scientists support a public direction akin to social democracy such as in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands etc.

[Anonymous No.4974581]

>>4974556
>The correlation between scores is only 0.71. The error of margin will be larger than that result.

I made no pretense of the quality of the data being great. Hence my "limited and inconsistent" preface. Though a Pearson's correlation of 0.71 is generally considered high in the social sciences. I should note that the Rindermann study in Brazil utilized a Standard Progressive Matrices test, which is generally considered one of the most reliable measure of cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.4974588]

>>4974462
I have NOTHING better to do.

[Analysis in brackets.]

notMe 08/16/12(Thu)13:12 No.4974329
Liberals are not the ones opposing scientific facts and researching treatments for diseases because its against religion.
[This is a response to the OP, which claims that "(Liberals) are destroying scientific advancement and research." It is a simple refutation of the main point, while implying that (at least some) Repuiblicans are to blame for the decline of scientific funding from the U.S. government. Note that nowhere is it stated OR implied that ALL republicans are religious, except possibly in the loosest sense, by those who can't into logic.]

notCarl 08/16/12(Thu)13:16 No.4974334
>suffers a severe case of liberal bias
[States that the poster is suffering from a political bias. Does not provide reasoning, or even a refutation of their statement. It is at this point that a debate would normally end, the arguments forfeited.]

notMe 08/16/12(Thu)13:18 No.4974339
You need to get better at this trolling thing. [Implying that the poster is a troll, based on their sympomatic response.] Religious conservatives oppose scientific research that disagrees with their beliefs even if this research will save or improve millions of lives. [Here it needs to be clearly stated that he does not even imply in the broadest possible sense that all conservatives are religious.] Do you really think anybody will believe a mindset that discourages new ideas and change will be better for science? [Implies through rhetorical question that religious conservatives are bad for science.]

notCarl 08/16/12(Thu)13:21 No.4974351
>implying religious conservatives are the only conservatives
[States the poster was implying that all conservatives are religious. Which they did not do.]

[Anonymous No.4974592]

prius liberals =/= actual political liberals
>babbies first politic

[Anonymous No.4974594]

>>4974588
Anonymous 08/16/12(Thu)13:25 No.4974364
>implying religious conservatives aren't a large enough majority that Republican presidential nominees will say they don't believe evolution is true
[Here it is implied that religious conservatives, while not the majority of the party, still effect the party as a whole.]
>YOUR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES FEEL OBLIGATED TO SAY THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS ACCURATE
[Statement reflecting on the nature of the effect on the party due to religious conservatives.]
>WHY ARE WE STILL BELABORING THIS? YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY TROLLING!
[Another accusation of trolling.]

Carl 08/16/12(Thu)13:27 No.4974373
Not believing in the theory of evolution is not a matter of being religious. [Non-sequitor, implying that the religious right does not believe in the theory of evolution for non-religious reasons.] Many scientists are naturally skeptic. [Non-sequitor given as reasoning for above statement. Even if scientists are natually skeptic, it isn't given, or implied beyond the possible conjecture that the religious right is composed primarily of scientists.]

Anonymous 08/16/12(Thu)13:34 No.4974392
I think you might be mentally disabled.
[Pointing out the absurd nature of the response.]

Carl 08/16/12(Thu)13:40 No.4974413
Why do you insult me? [Because you deserve to be insulted.] Are you out of arguments? [No.] Are you emotionally distressed [No.] because you can't rationalize your silly beliefs anymore? [If I can rationalize my beliefs sufficently, then they are not silly.]
[Rhetorical questions designed to make the opponenet seem as though they hold a weaker position than they do.] Cry harder. [Make me, faggot. Also, ironic in the sense that what started with a victim statement ends with a persecution statement.]

[Anonymous No.4974596]

>>4974556
>The correlation between scores is only 0.71. The error of margin will be larger than that result.

I made no pretense of the quality of the data being great. Hence my "limited and inconsistent" preface. Though a Pearson's correlation of 0.71 is generally considered high in the social sciences. I should note that the Rindermann study in Brazil utilized a Standard Progressive Matrices test, which is generally considered one of the most reliable measures of cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.4974599]

>>4974594
Anonymous 08/16/12(Thu)13:42 No.4974420
No, it's because you responded to my post in a manner that suggested you missed the point entirely, [Again, you were insulted because you deserved to beinsulted.] which is something retarded people tend to do [Reasoning for belief re: justifiability of insult].
Oh look, you did it again.
[Referring to the fact that you misconstrued my verbal abuse of you as some failing on my part, rather than due to your response's absurdity.]


Carl 08/16/12(Thu)13:45 No.4974430
Let me summarize your idiocy: Just because you in your very limited mental capacities fail to even remotely understand what I'm posting [unwarrented statement](although I already keep it as simple as possible), you dismiss it as "retarded". [Refutation of my initial response to the absurdity of your post.]
Please go on. You are amusing.
[As condescending as this is, I fully intend to.]

Anonymous 08/16/12(Thu)13:54 No.4974453
>I'm not retarded!
>YOU'RE retarded!
[Summarized the post.]
Great comeback, champ.
[Condescension returned.]

Carl 08/16/12(Thu)13:57 No.4974462
Stating facts is always a good comeback. ;)
[This does not seem to apply to my initial post, where I stated my belied that you were mentally handicapped. This suggests that you hod your beliefs as more valid than others, without reason, or that you view your position in this discussion as a person for whom the rules as for what constitutes "facts" is more loose.]
I'm not the one who had to bring up childish ad hominems in the first place btw.
[This is basically saying "I didn't start it, so I get to throw mud without my actions being brought into question." ]
Insecure much?
[Another "childish ad hominem" in the same vein as before, in that it is designed to make the opposition look weaker than they are.]

[Carl No.4974608]

>>4974594
>>4974599
Oh wow, you're not only stupid, you're also easily butthurt. Such condition is a contraindication for posting on /sci/. Not only you completely failed to come even remotely close to an appropriate understanding of my posts, but you also have the autism to keep repeating your wrong interpretation over and over again.

Let me help you:
1. Learn reading comprehension. Otherwise you look like an idiot.
2. Learn to keep emotions out of arguments. It will only make you cry harder.

[Anonymous No.4974628]

>>4974599
>>4974594
>>4974588
you're not from around here are you? you should probably go back to reddit or whatever shithole forum you came from. in the meantime, enjoy your infantile cartoon ban.

[Anonymous No.4974638]

Carl 08/16/12(Thu)14:41 No.4974608
Oh wow, you're not only stupid, you're also easily butthurt. [Statement given without justification.] Such condition is a contraindication for posting on /sci/. [Grammatical errors and/or muddled sentence structure imply haste and/or emotional response.] Not only you completely failed to come even remotely close to an appropriate understanding of my posts [Further grammar issues, does not provide a clearer interpretation that refutes what my analysis.], but you also have the autism to keep repeating your wrong interpretation over and over again. ["In the face of no evidence to the contrary, you stupidly hold onto the belief that you've formed." Right-o.]

Let me help you:
1. Learn reading comprehension. Otherwise you look like an idiot.
[Unjustified statement: does not provide evidence my interpretation of his words are incorrect, or that (except in above post) I could not understand what he was trying to say.]
2. Learn to keep emotions out of arguments. It will only make you cry harder.
[This coming from the person who initially complained about me calling him mentally retarded for stringing together some non-sequiturs full of implications and calling it a response, and who has since accused me of being retarded, unable to comprehend the written word, and of being autistic, over-emotional, and holding beliefs which are "silly".]

[This must be what it feels like to win an autistic boxing match. I'm not posting any more pictures, because I don't want to bump this thread. (Waits warmly for fallout in response to prior statement.)]

[Anonymous No.4974642]

>>4974608
No he actually nailed you down pretty well. You tend to lead with baseless assertions intended to grab attention, and when called on it you just endlessly deflect until the other person uses either a fallacy or something you can spin into one. At that point you just keep referring back to the fallacy as a refutation of every post past or future the other guy makes.


You are a fairly good troll, but you have no worth beyond that to sci.

[Carl No.4974649]

>>4974638
Well I can't teach a blind man to recognize colors.

Another won debate for me.

[Anonymous No.4974650]

>>4974628
>implying you're a mod
>implying mods ban people for posting pictures to bump threads with
>implying needless reporting isn't a bannable offense
>implying I haven't been on 4chan for... 5 years now?
>implying 4chan isn't a shit hole
>implying /sci/ isn't a shit hole
>implying this isn't a god damned troll thread nobody cares about

[Anonymous No.4974652]

>>4974638
>I'm not posting any more pictures, because I don't want to bump this thread. (Waits warmly for fallout in response to prior statement.
Wow you really are a retard.

[Anonymous No.4974655]

>>4974628
You know like three people have been banned now for saying "enjoy your infantile cartoon ban" right?

You're kina poking the tiger when you post that.

[Anonymous No.4974656]

>>4974650
>implying infantile cartoons are not a bannable offense
>implying I implied I'm a mod
>implying I stated that I reported anyone
>implying you aren't a newfag

[Carl No.4974657]

>>4974642
What did he come up with? Other than fallacies and ignorance? He lacks basic reading comprehension and there's nothing we can do for him. Pretty sad actually.

[Anonymous No.4974658]

>>4974608
>this guy calling people austistic

I "geyss that's a contraindiction" on your part, you illiterate faggot.

[Carl No.4974660]

>>4974658
U wot m8? Projecting hard?

[Anonymous No.4974664]

>>4974657
See? Started deflecting. You operate like clockwork.

[Carl No.4974667]

>>4974664
Nope. Try again, wannabe troll. Arguing against facts and logic is futile. :D

[Anonymous No.4974676]

>>4974664
You're making yourself look stupid

[Anonymous No.4974677]

>>4974667
I suppose its possible you don't even realise you're doing it, though I find that hard to believe.

Even now you're trying to redirect the discussion with an insult and a debatable claim.

[Carl No.4974678]

>>4974677
What's there to debate? Every non-retard instantly realizes that I'm right. Come at me.

[Anonymous No.4974679]

>>4974667
>Arguing against facts and logic is futile.
This. Carl is an agent of science. You cannot argue against him since he always has science on his side.

[Anonymous No.4974688]

>>4974660
I just thought it was funny that my linked post was complaining of autism on the board but then went on to write probably some of the most autistic script I've seen on /sci/ in a while. I don't even understand what you mean by projecting, other than being vaguely familiar with it as a term of Freudian analysis. So what is this then, fags protecting fags? Good luck with that soft science lad

[Carl No.4974692]

>>4974688
>psychology
>a soft science

Choose one.

[Anonymous No.4974693]

>>4974678
And again.

We aren't debating anything. I just made a claim with regard to your general behaviour, and right now you seem to be trying to prove me right.

[Anonymous No.4974696]

What a great thread.

[Carl No.4974700]

>>4974693
My behaviour is flawless. With my broad and deep scientific education I am helping other posters by contributing informative OC. =P

[Anonymous No.4974703]

>>4974649
Carl 08/16/12(Thu)14:55 No.4974649
Well I can't teach a blind man to recognize colors.
Another won debate for me.
[Admission of being unable to do the impossible (non-sequitur), implying that he's effectively won the debate since he is unable to converse with the lower life form that I am, in comparison to his burning glorious presence. [That was hyperbole].]

And that's how you deal with trolls. You have to be a logical, wall-of-texting, autistic manchild with nothing better to do.
Or ignore them. Sometimes it's worth the battle, sometimes you stay up 'till 3AM honing your rhetorical skills.
Either way, the first step is recognizing when a troll is a troll, and when it's just a stray idiot. In this case, it was pretty clear, from the start of the thread, to the very end.
Remember: if you can't believe somebody can be that stupid while being so eloquent, they're probably trolling you.
The worst thing you can do is get emotional - if they ARE trolling you, they'll have already won, you'll be less likely to pull out of a conversation you are emotionally invested in, so they'll keep winning. Also, on the off chance it isn't a troll, being polite never hurts (but you're on 4chan, a certain level of verbal rough-housing is the norm).
Most importantly: dissect their posts. Identify what they're saying, and how they're saying it, and see if it makes sense. Especially in-context.
Finally: not everyone is trying to troll you.

>>4974652
>Wow you really are a retard.
Thank you for providing the fallout. Now I get to say 'lurk moar, faggot'. Stealthsage, like any other sage, only bumps a thread when you post with a picture (unless moot changed that recently).
And I always stealthsage.

[Carl No.4974705]

>>4974703
> honing your rhetorical skills.
Which rhetorical skills? You have none. ^^

>Finally: not everyone is trying to troll you.
Damn straight. I am trying to educate you, but you refuse to accept my help. ;(

[Anonymous No.4974706]

>Thread about US political parties one is right and the other far right
>People probably can't even define ''liberal'' correctly yet they keep throwing it out as an insult
>Niggers bring /pol/ threads here
Sage for not science
Go back to pol
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4974707]

>>4974700
> =P
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.4974710]

>>4974703
>And I always stealthsage.
Retard confirmed.

[Anonymous No.4974712]

>>4974523
gunna need a factual source on that once. the GOP has left nasa mostly alone this cycle, with the exception of liberals in congress who want that money for other shitty pet projects

[Anonymous No.4974716]

>>4974301
"libtards" -- you sound like a crazy person. And your pic is of a known atheist pothead.

[Anonymous No.4974721]

>>4974705
Notice how in the past couple of posts, he's began using emoticons, which weren't present earlier. This is either some kind of PTSD relapse to the days of AOL Messenger Yore, or he's doing it deliberately to get a response.
However, combined with the kind of naive self-assuredness of his posts, he could legitimately be mis-identified as an lolXDrandum narcissist teenager. Which is contradictory of his previous posting.
Don't fall for this shit, >>4974707

[Carl No.4974731]

>>4974721
Keep analyzing me. Your analysis tells us more about your person than about mine.

[Anonymous No.4974733]

>>4974731
>im rubber ur glue

[Anonymous No.4974739]

>>4974710
I bet you don't even know how to noko, you poor soul.
You think I like seeing my posts on the front page?
No. Not usually. And especially not in a case like this.
When I think I have something worth reading (for those outside of the the people f5ing the thread to get their fix of my wonderful prose [self-deprecating sarcasm] ), all I have to do is post with a picture. Or when I feel like drawing a troll out of hiding with animu. When people complain about an errant anime image, it makes them pretty easy to tag as a troll.

[Anonymous No.4974744]

>>4974712
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/222205-house-gop-unveils-cuts-to-nasa-science-f
unding/
google

[Carl No.4974750]

>>4974739
>troll

Maybe you didn't notice, but you're posting on /sci/ right now. This is not the place for silly /b/ slang. If you're lacking the seriousness, you are not welcome.

[Anonymous No.4974754]

>>4974731
You can see how he takes a clinical analysis of his trolling style, and applies it to himself, as though I was calling him an immature teenager, or narcissistic. This kind of trolling is probably less effective on 4chan. It would be very effective on another, less ephemeral, more emotionally driven forum.
If I had to guess, this might be a tactic learned long ago to get gullible people to defend him, essentially turning a forum against itself.

[Anonymous No.4974762]

>>4974744
well shit, looks like both parties are being dicks this cycle

i wonder if their opinions have changed post curiosity?

[Anonymous No.4974768]

You can't get rid of the anti-science sentiment in human nature. People form their own perceptions of the world that they are comfortable with. There will always be things that science says that people - any people will deny because it steps on their dreams or their personal interpretation of the universe.

Religiousfags won't listen to people say that abiogenesis is the source of life. And sciencefags won't listen to observations of the universe which tell us with 100% certainty that FTL is impossible.

Religiousfags want their heaven, and so do sciencefags. Heaven to the sciencefag is the singularity, and it fulfulls many of the same ancient wishes that the Rapture promises.

They're not that different.

[Carl No.4974769]

>>4974754
Watch out everybody, we got a professional disinfo agent over here.

[Anonymous No.4974776]

>>4974754

> this might be a tactic learned long ago to get gullible people to defend him,

Using carl sagan, the god-jesus of sciencefags, only furthers this goal.

[Anonymous No.4974778]

>>4974712
Also this,
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/02/house-republica.html

[Anonymous No.4974782]

>>4974750
This is an abrupt about-face. This almost makes me think he's trying to dance with me. (In a metaphorical sense. Because this is becoming an excellent example of numerous troll behaviors.)

There is a clear contradiction between his words, and a very quick abandonment of his more smiley-face persona. While before, he had no problem with being called a troll, he's suddenly become concerned about the forum's decorum. This is a serious place, and I'm just a child who should run back to /b/, because he's a mature individual who has important science things to discuss with you lot. Never mind that he's also alienating you lot with this language - I can't tell if that was intentional, another attempt to draw fresh meat into the conversation, or garner support against this young upstart - but I can guess the former.

[Anonymous No.4974780]

>>4974769
i've seen Carl post
you are not Carl
he namefags specifically so he doesn't seem like a faggot by trying to "uphold" his reputation, the least you could do is not be a reddit fag by lololxdtrolling using his name

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.4974784]

>>4974599
>>4974638
>lrn2greentext

[Anonymous No.4974791]

>>4974784
Some of the posts I was analysing had greentext in them already.
You want me to greentext greentext, fag?
>saging with an image
What the fuck are you trying to do? Now we're on the front page again, asshole.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.4974817]

>>4974791
yeah, because of you.

[Anonymous No.4974841]

>>4974817
See, this is why it's important to read the whole thread before you reply. If you had, you'd know that I'm steal-saging right now.