please give me an argument for why something that is not controlled, not double blinded, and not peer reviewed is as likely to be true as something that is blinded, controls for confounds, and is reviewed by experts in the field?
you can't see for yourself why that isn't a valid and objective criteria?
like, "reasons"? Any action a person makes without a reason that satisfies YOU is "drone like"? thats waaaaay too subjective.
list of terms you need to define:
follow
social ideas
law
gay?
reasons
explanations
actions
their own
behaviour
this all assumes learning things like speech patterns, similar slang, similar mannerisms, similar beliefs etc from the peer group can be prevented and is somehow beneficial...
I guess you would probably have to show some significant difference between social learning and other forms of learning. And SOMEHOW show how someone can NOT be influenced by their social environment. (re: this is relevant to neuroplasticity [which is the term used to describe the way neurons and genes in the brain respond to incoming stimuli, thus making it impossible to separate social/genetic influences of ANY cognitive process, as they are the same thing at that level])
lol. thats really not your theory though, is it?
however, we have in fact been arguing the nature of human dualism, then the nature of scientific empiricism
again, more my point.
no, you don't need them
however, to ignore real scientific data because you saw something on TV is the height of ignorance.
start on page 1 of this thread.
you aren't looking at things from a social point of view. You are looking from a point of view based on a pet theory that you just made up.
lol, I was being a little facetious. I agree, there are lots of good comics out there that will probably stand the test of time. Me, I'm not so particular. I just read Arkham Asylum, and honestly, so good, so f'ing good.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Haha, good stuff though.
On a different note, is your avatar, by chance, Man Thing. I am not quite certain. I always thought Swamp Thing but now I gave it a closer look that's nonsense.
Oh, I figured that you would take the neutral perspective later on in the thread and decided to post about your post anyway solely for entertainment. I was more or less arguing with the implications in that one particular post because it's hard to "get you" NOT being neutral/objective.
Let me have my fun, damnit!
And dadudemon can't be arsed to look that shit up or ask a psychology student/professor to find/cite evidence that shows that the vast majority of women still desire children in developed countries. If someone else is happy to look it up for me...they can. I think it's obvious.
And my other comment about a kick in the balls for not wanting kids was OBVIOUSLY over exaggerated hyperbole. (Redundant, I know...but redundant for a reason.) My wife got really pissed at me for saying that I didn't want any more kids for a while a few months after we were married. It actually pissed me off that something like that upset her. I was literally pissed that she was pissed about that. She didn't kick me in the nuts and leave me, though...but I'm sure that's happened to a dude before...there's plenty of bitches out there to go around.
Fail. I never said anecdotal evidence replaces empirical evidence. *Searches KMC* Since my memory is good enough that I didn't have to search for that to begin with, I just wasted my time. DAMNIT!
If that wasn't what your were getting at, **** you and your games. (For now...mwhahahahahahahaha!)
KMC Community Forums
Oct 7th, 2008 10:44 PM
(For now...mwhahahahahahahaha!)
