The GDF Septic Tank (Official Off Topic)

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Think about how the following fits together

You say that corporations are extentions of the state
You say that any scientific studies conducted with any kind of state funding are inherently compromised with conflicts of interest so you don't believe them. You disregard any studies that don't support your beliefs as being inherently compromised because of state funding even when you don't know anything at all about their funding and where no conflict of interest was declared.
Yet you say that scientific opinions expressed by people working for and on behalf of and to the benefit of corporations are valid and honest. Even when these opinions are not based on any scientific study those people have been involved in.

You claim that so long as the scientific method is followed that is what matters yet you ignore meta-analyses that utilise it rigorously and on the other hand you accept as fact, studies which were either retracted by their authors for being flawed or are left out of meta-analyses because they did not comply with the scientific method.

You support your opinion with a wiki article that criticises studies which cannot be replicated because of their poor scientific methodology yet accept as fact studies shown to be unreplicable because of their poor scientific methodology.

Let's go one claim at a time, if you don't mind, I'm slow.

Do you think corporations aren't a product of the state ?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Think about how the following fits together

You say that corporations are extentions of the state
You say that any scientific studies conducted with any kind of state funding are inherently compromised with conflicts of interest so you don't believe them. You disregard any studies that don't support your beliefs as being inherently compromised because of state funding even when you don't know anything at all about their funding and where no conflict of interest was declared.
Yet you say that scientific opinions expressed by people working for and on behalf of and to the benefit of corporations are valid and honest. Even when these opinions are not based on any scientific study those people have been involved in.

You claim that so long as the scientific method is followed that is what matters yet you ignore meta-analyses that utilise it rigorously and on the other hand you accept as fact, studies which were either retracted by their authors for being flawed or are left out of meta-analyses because they did not comply with the scientific method.

You support your opinion with a wiki article that criticises studies which cannot be replicated because of their poor scientific methodology yet accept as fact studies shown to be unreplicable because of their poor scientific methodology.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Let's go one claim at a time, if you don't mind, I'm slow.

Do you think corporations aren't a product of the state ?

It doesn't matter I think. Because we're discussing how your stances contradict each other to the Nth degree.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It doesn't matter I think. Because we're discussing how your stances contradict each other to the Nth degree.

Right, so let's go 1 by 1.

I claim a corporation is something that could only exist under a state. Is this true or not ?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Right, so let's go 1 by 1.

I claim a corporation is something that could only exist under a state. Is this true or not ?

You're still missing my point.

Which is that you don't believe scientific studies that you believe, but not actually know, are funded by "the state" but you're perfectly happy to believe someone who speaks on behalf of and for the benefit of a corporation that only exists because of the same "state"

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Jaden is the girl with the ponytail. Ziggy (I like comics) is the stick man.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

I already said this, and pointed out that the girl is silly because "the science" is experiencing a replication crisis.

50 percent of scientists can't replicate their own work, 60 percent can't replicate the work of other scientists.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It doesn't matter I think. Because we're discussing how your stances contradict each other to the Nth degree.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!

You don't get to call my beliefs contradictory until you understand them.

Is a corporation an extension of the state ?

I think I get it: The state = can't be trusted. Corporations = can be trusted. Corporations = extensions of the state.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think I get it: Corporations = extensions of the state. The state = can't be trusted. Corporations = can be trusted.

No.
Corps = state = bad.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
No.
Corps = state = bad.

Then as already noted, why do you trust these scientist who work for corporations?

Originally posted by Robtard
Then as already noted, why do you trust these scientist who work for corporations?

Name a scientist you think I trust, who works for a corporation and I'll tell you if I do.

One of my favorite sources Is Dr. Joseph mercola. What corporation does he work for ?

I'd have to go back to one of the now closed COVID threads and I really can't be bothered today.

The guy's named who claimed he was the inventor of the mRNA method?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Name a scientist you think I trust, who works for a corporation and I'll tell you if I do.

One of my favorite sources Is Dr. Joseph mercola. What corporation does he work for ?

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd have to go back to one of the now closed COVID threads and I really can't be bothered today.

I just gave you a doctor, all you have to do is Google what corporation he works for.

If he doesn't work for a corporation your argument is moot.

Originally posted by Blakemore
The chiropractor's association?

That's a corporation ?

Anything can be a corporation in the land of the free. What's the matter, you don't like America?