Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes.I don't.
I haven't. You're still a science-denying [insult].
My entertainment is more important than maintaining an ideal enemy state for you to fight.
And I am not. You're still an [insult] who is a science denier.
Be more interested in these nuts.
You blew it. You had the opportunity to have an adult discussion but denied very clear science. You fell into the hole of what I consider complete idiots who are not worth engaging in serious discussion. It's a very short list. Very few people are such giant idiots that they end up on this list.
You did in this comment.
Then you just said science only lead to 2 innovations.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
You did in this comment.
No I didn't. Not at all. It's not even a stretch on your part: you're plain wrong.
Try to be more honest, in the future.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Then you just said science only lead to 2 innovations.
I was referring to only my specific innovations. Only 2 published white papers. It was also a joke. Because no-one gives a shit about the data handling logarithms and virtual hardware architecture when I wrote about memristors.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
How is this not the clearest example of you being mean to me because you think im a science denier?
You did it again. You specifically said, "...now youre down playing the importance of science."
Which I didn't.
Do you see why we can't have any conversation?
I think it's done. We didn't get anywhere.
You didn't learn that atheism is a very broad umbrella that can include anything from agnostics to gnostic atheists.
You didn't learn how to remember conversations from a few minutes agao.
You didn't learn what scientific polling is (maybe you did?).
And you still don't know how to be honest enough to assign your "beliefs" with the "belief" label.
Now try to compliment/insult bait me, again. I'll just ignore you.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You did it again. You specifically said, "...now youre down playing the importance of science."Which I didn't.
Do you see why we can't have any conversation?
I think it's done. We didn't get anywhere.
You didn't learn that atheism is a very broad umbrella that can include anything from agnostics to gnostic atheists.
You didn't learn how to remember conversations from a few minutes agao.
You didn't learn what scientific polling is (maybe you did?).
And you still don't know how to be honest enough to assign your "beliefs" with the "belief" label.
Now try to compliment/insult bait me, again. I'll just ignore you.
Ohhhhhh i thought you were claiming you werent insulting me because you view me as a science denier, NOT that you were refuting my claim that you were downplaying the importance of science.
So you do think science is very important and were not saying it isnt important, and now i get what part you were referring to as a joke.
Im caught up now and no longer misconstruing what youre talking about there. My bad on the misunderstanding.
In reference to atheism as an umbrella term: As i said from the beginning i already understood that argument and have had it with others (the distinction between theism and atheism, and gnosticism and agnsoticism. In dawkins the god delusion he has a 7 part sliding spectrum that discusses that, which is the source material i constructed my argument from.
I was arguing most people dont understand that and was making the assertion that that could affect polling massively.
However, i was unaware that definitions are provided at the time of polling.
Again, i barely graduated highschool and was misinformed in terms of my predicate, which is why my argument was off.
So yes, i actually do have a better idea of polling and that is because our exchange. Thank you for that, now i wont make that same argument in real life.
My beliefs are beliefs, im just saying some beliefs are more justified than others based on evidence. I always try to find the beliefs with the most evidence.
Just like most people except the very pious, ideologues and their followers, and morons.
If youre looking for reasons to not talk to me, you dont have to.
Im all for free association, i just don't understand the eagerness to categorize me as a bad actor.
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Ohhhhhh i thought you were claiming you werent insulting me because you view me as a science denier, NOT that you were refuting my claim that you were downplaying the importance of science.So you do think science is very important and were not saying it isnt important, and now i get what part you were referring to as a joke.
Im caught up now and no longer misconstruing what youre talking about there. My bad on the misunderstanding.
In reference to atheism as an umbrella term: As i said from the beginning i already understood that argument and have had it with others (the distinction between theism and atheism, and gnosticism and agnsoticism. In dawkins the god delusion he has a 7 part sliding spectrum that discusses that, which is the source material i constructed my argument from.
I was arguing most people dont understand that and was making the assertion that that could affect polling massively.
However, i was unaware that definitions are provided at the time of polling.
Again, i barely graduated highschool and was misinformed in terms of my predicate, which is why my argument was off.So yes, i actually do have a better idea of polling and that is because our exchange. Thank you for that, now i wont make that same argument in real life.
My beliefs are beliefs, im just saying some beliefs are more justified than others based on evidence. I always try to find the beliefs with the most evidence.
Just like most people except the very pious, ideologues and their followers, and morons.If youre looking for reasons to not talk to me, you dont have to.
Im all for free association, i just don't understand the eagerness to categorize me as a bad actor.
Your easy to categorize as a bad actor bc you are bad actor
Originally posted by ilikecomics
If the owner of a diary queen franchise, in a free market, says they wont sell ice cream to someone because theyre black, for example, then that guy would be seen as a racist jerk and his dq would collapse.
That would be an example of cancel culture. So in your idealized scenario, cancel culture is an essential corrective mechanism in a free market. So if you support one, you necessarily have to support the other.