Funny that you think the scientific method was used in relation to explaining ice ages and global warming/cooling... Historical sciences are guesses at best and typically have very little to do with the scientific method. This is why they are overturned often and in massive ways. The "faith" that people have put into global warming based on only history and computer models is staggering. And the zeal with which they have attacked anyone who disagrees smacks of burning people at the stake for believing in a round earth. It's closer to politics or religion than science, because a true scientist doesn't care if other people agree with his "side". In a true science, the facts will do that for them.
Yeah, we totally don't use science to understand things that already happened, like how the Sun formed, or how life operates, without directly observing those processes.
No wait, those are very well understood concepts in astronomy and biology, and you're a misguided idiot for pretending that science always happens in a test-tube.
Changing climates is a bitch for any species, no matter the rate. Evolution is a hash mistress and you get genes that adapt you really well to one circumstance, and when things change, the generalist k-selected species like cockroaches, algae, and e-coli kick your ass.
It's a little disingenuous to say that's similar to what's happening now. Human concerns are for relatively small temperature changes over REALLY REALLY REALLY short amounts of time, that threaten the stable conditions the agro-economies of the world are currently built on, not the continued existence of species.
There are a host of things that can reasonably be called "controlled repeatable experiments" within the theory of human induced climate change. You're going to have to narrow down which specific hypothesis you're "concerned" with in the greater theory for me to address you query with an answer more specific than "you're wrong".
Or you know, the scientific method was used that refines theories, based on new evidence.
Maybe we should be like you, where we know that there's no human-induced climate change because we ignore the unprecedented rate of change in temperature over the past 2 centuries, and keep all our understanding exactly the same as when we were born.
Or not. That's a pretty tiring way to go about debate. I've expressed disinterest in the points for a specific reason, that's only a back-door for exhausting, lame meta-discussion
You've got me, I'm racist because I elected to say African American, instead of "black" because that's so much more physically accurate and in no way brings in insulting implications.
You can take it however you want it, if your personal sense of dignity depends on your having a specific belief about how a stranger on the internet engages in a bodily function, you're way beyond pity.
No, I'm not surprised. There exist competing theories on the nature of nature of discrimination, and one of the theories that exists, but is not widely adopted is called prejudice plus power. That's not where the majority of people seeking equality are coming from and its misrepresentative to claim they are.
You can keep pretending your few straw feminists have any bearing on the underlying problem of recurring social discrimination, but it's over and over again been quite clearly a facade to cover for prejudice.
He did, but kind of spontaneously in response to a sudden question in a conversation, and he went onto a more nuanced answer than that. But people love to take moderate quotes from minorities about minority rights out of context and use them in a justification of something extraordinarily bigoted. It's another flavor of "not racist but" or "my black friend". It's like how Chris Rock decided he need to make a public retraction of the "black people and niggers" stand-up routine because racists were using it to justify all sorts of horrible opinions, and he felt extremely concerned about his impact on race relations.
It's actually far more interesting how you write extremely specific beliefs about an extremely specific situation onto me. I've made numerous posts(under this alias, so find them if you're an e-stalker, or trust my word if you're not mentally disturbed) throughout the whole Zimmerman affair that all you could(and you should) expect was a trial. I don't falsely believe in my power to judge other people without specific examination of circumstances. My entire reasoning is that someone died violently, that called for examination of why with due process.
The fact that you'd write that much identity onto a person without so much as a second thought, really ought to give you pause. That is the fundamental mechanism of bigotry(and no I'm not accusing you of bigotry against me). I think a careful reflection on what lead you to that conclusion and why.
Enjoy straining definitions to the point where they can cover anything you don't like, and enjoy begging the question. Also, enjoy apparently being unable to address any of my criticism of your views.
I know I'm just going to be stretching a dead argument, but that's what you're doing.
The biggest issue is that "some feminist claims" is already a patently strawman that describes at most a few people, but it's where the debate starts with places like slashdot.
Oh yeah, there's no way one group could collectively hold more power per person than another. You're right, all people are completely equal and society doesn't have any intrinsic or extrinsic favoritism. Incredible insight there.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides making things up, do you have anything to contribute?
If Obama actually said that, he's outright wrong. No matter what metric of "threat" you use, there's an example of something that scores greater.
Funny that you think the scientific method was used in relation to explaining ice ages and global warming/cooling... Historical sciences are guesses at best and typically have very little to do with the scientific method. This is why they are overturned often and in massive ways. The "faith" that people have put into global warming based on only history and computer models is staggering. And the zeal with which they have attacked anyone who disagrees smacks of burning people at the stake for believing in a round earth. It's closer to politics or religion than science, because a true scientist doesn't care if other people agree with his "side". In a true science, the facts will do that for them.
Yeah, we totally don't use science to understand things that already happened, like how the Sun formed, or how life operates, without directly observing those processes.
No wait, those are very well understood concepts in astronomy and biology, and you're a misguided idiot for pretending that science always happens in a test-tube.
Changing climates is a bitch for any species, no matter the rate. Evolution is a hash mistress and you get genes that adapt you really well to one circumstance, and when things change, the generalist k-selected species like cockroaches, algae, and e-coli kick your ass.
It's a little disingenuous to say that's similar to what's happening now. Human concerns are for relatively small temperature changes over REALLY REALLY REALLY short amounts of time, that threaten the stable conditions the agro-economies of the world are currently built on, not the continued existence of species.
There are a host of things that can reasonably be called "controlled repeatable experiments" within the theory of human induced climate change. You're going to have to narrow down which specific hypothesis you're "concerned" with in the greater theory for me to address you query with an answer more specific than "you're wrong".
"If we cannot have perfect knowledge, we can't have any knowledge, and I'm an intellectually lazy snob"
All I could get out of what you posted..
Caveman Aduni Wuts
You repeat yourself.
Or you know, the scientific method was used that refines theories, based on new evidence.
Maybe we should be like you, where we know that there's no human-induced climate change because we ignore the unprecedented rate of change in temperature over the past 2 centuries, and keep all our understanding exactly the same as when we were born.
Well, I was forgetting the overturned the terrible Oracle v Google decision. Point retracted.
Yes, but for a non-open source language, that would be a copyright violation.
Or not. That's a pretty tiring way to go about debate. I've expressed disinterest in the points for a specific reason, that's only a back-door for exhausting, lame meta-discussion
You've got me, I'm racist because I elected to say African American, instead of "black" because that's so much more physically accurate and in no way brings in insulting implications.
You can take it however you want it, if your personal sense of dignity depends on your having a specific belief about how a stranger on the internet engages in a bodily function, you're way beyond pity.
You find such a natural peer in urine.
No, I'm not surprised. There exist competing theories on the nature of nature of discrimination, and one of the theories that exists, but is not widely adopted is called prejudice plus power. That's not where the majority of people seeking equality are coming from and its misrepresentative to claim they are.
You can keep pretending your few straw feminists have any bearing on the underlying problem of recurring social discrimination, but it's over and over again been quite clearly a facade to cover for prejudice.
That's because the claims were tangential and irrelevant.
I don't know, but 640G would be enough for anyone.
He did, but kind of spontaneously in response to a sudden question in a conversation, and he went onto a more nuanced answer than that. But people love to take moderate quotes from minorities about minority rights out of context and use them in a justification of something extraordinarily bigoted. It's another flavor of "not racist but" or "my black friend". It's like how Chris Rock decided he need to make a public retraction of the "black people and niggers" stand-up routine because racists were using it to justify all sorts of horrible opinions, and he felt extremely concerned about his impact on race relations.
It's actually far more interesting how you write extremely specific beliefs about an extremely specific situation onto me. I've made numerous posts(under this alias, so find them if you're an e-stalker, or trust my word if you're not mentally disturbed) throughout the whole Zimmerman affair that all you could(and you should) expect was a trial. I don't falsely believe in my power to judge other people without specific examination of circumstances. My entire reasoning is that someone died violently, that called for examination of why with due process.
The fact that you'd write that much identity onto a person without so much as a second thought, really ought to give you pause. That is the fundamental mechanism of bigotry(and no I'm not accusing you of bigotry against me). I think a careful reflection on what lead you to that conclusion and why.
Oh, who did I shove into what group there? There are people who create groups then discriminate against them. That's hardly a contestable fact.
Enjoy straining definitions to the point where they can cover anything you don't like, and enjoy begging the question. Also, enjoy apparently being unable to address any of my criticism of your views.
I know I'm just going to be stretching a dead argument, but that's what you're doing.
I'm already a secular humanist. Most of the tenants of feminism are a natural consequence.
The biggest issue is that "some feminist claims" is already a patently strawman that describes at most a few people, but it's where the debate starts with places like slashdot.
Oh yeah, there's no way one group could collectively hold more power per person than another. You're right, all people are completely equal and society doesn't have any intrinsic or extrinsic favoritism. Incredible insight there.
Enjoy your sexism you don't call sexism. You are in fact free to pretend that your particular kinds of discrimination aren't.