sir, this is a wendys.
1 Like
im not reading your 1000 pg novel but hello ppl in the thread
In the Aristotelian model where a thing either is or is not, no.
In the Taoist model, certainly.
I know that joke. 
i dont think this is the forum for this kind of stuff lol
This is neither model. This is reality. If everybody is equally mad at you, it is really possible for you to be completely wrong. Even if they’re wrong too.
Oh a sunday thread.
1 Like
A lot of information is released before peer review, and you mentioned a deeper issue with some things being based on what is the most likely answer without definitive proof and even the experts will argue which is the correct interpretation.
The majority of scientist seem in agreement that man’s activities have negatively affected the environment, it’s the cause, extent, and conclusion that’s being argued.
I agree with you on climate change “science”
However. I will say your making an argument against abortion based off the idea, that the right says if there’s a heartbeat, it’s a human and can therefore can live outside the moms womb.
I would say The right doesnt value life based off the ability to live on its own. Humans live on ventilators and in comas with less brain activity than fetus’. Not on their own. Yet no one wants them dead. They are a literal parasite living off medical equipment.
They base the value of life on the POTENTIAL of life. At 6 weeks the POTENTIAL to life is immensely great an highly probable. That’s where your argument falls apart on that concept.
1 Like
You must’ve used one of the magic words that Blizzard is too afraid to take action against.
In the case of fetal heartbeat there is no attempt to scientifically say this means anything other than the embryo is currently alive. It is no more scientific than saying a person magically one day goes from being a legal child at 17 to a legal adult at 18. Lines have to be drawn and these are some of those lines that have been drawn for better and worse.
There are other theories that we have no means of testing them such as String Theory. It nicely ties up some loose ends but creates its own problems.
Then there are theories we know are valid, such as General and Special Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (specifically the Standard Model) but we know they are incomplete as we can’t reconcile them or make a description of gravity that fits in either model.
We have Entropy which describes the tendency of the Universe to seek the lowest energy levels available and Evolution which generally leads toward greater complexity.
Climate change in undeniable. A simple survey of historical data shows the climate is always changing. How much of the current change is a byproduct of human civilization? Probably less than 3°C folks say and more than change deniers claim.
In short, good science has less power to settle disagreements than it seems like it should.
Can we have an off topic flag lol
You realize the people who you believe need to read this probably don’t come to the forums, right?
Woodford Reserve is much better.
I failed science and yes global warming is real.
Wish blizzard would hire me as a mod for GD. What a cesspool it is.
Because you believe it is or because there’s actual science that says it is, because there really isn’t any.
What there is is a raft of climate scientists (about 700) who signed a paper (some after being badgered 3 or 4 times to do so) that they all agreed that there was anthropomorpic climate change.
But as to actual science, since the method of exploring a theory is to challenge it and the Climate Science crowd a priori rejects any challenges as being corrupt, there isn’t any.
We got another forum philosopher out here
1 Like
You say that like studying the way in which we think is a bad thing.
You’ve only to look at the world right now and see how much we need more of, well, me.
Is this a thesis for college you are testing out on us? Lol.
I enjoyed the read nonetheless
It’s times like this when I’m really happy to be medicated. The world’s a weird place.