Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by B. Fury, Mar 9, 2008.
this is the core of white peoples exisance as a race.
hey man i only said a slur because he did....and as far as only talking tough on the net i would bet 1,000 bucks he wouldn't call me or any other black person an emotional negroid to our face....that was the point i was trying to make
Stop being so emotional.
The first sentence doesn't make sense to me. If a person commits an immoral act and truly feels guilty about it, then he or she must take responsibility for his or her actions. Attempting to justify them proves that the so-called guilt must not be too genuine. The "science" is propaganda.
Hello Emotional Negroids.
Ten years ago, you said (I know, the fact that your own words are actually recorded and held against you defies your teenage/Peter Pan complex angst) any people that attempted to homogenize a race did so under the blessings of Hitler. Now, your emotional, animal, peanut-sized minds are hellbent to say that the values of biodiversity is a racist institution.
Apparently, this is the most racist document in Scientific History:
WARNING NEGROFAGS: Science will frequently be culturally offensive. If you can't deal with it, go back to religion with the creationists. Or idolatry if you want to be 'politically correct'. Or polytheism to be 'culturally accurate'. Or whatever the fuck you mud races do when superior technology isn't being pointed at you.
Well, hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?
You're getting the idea.
Weren't you the same moron who made the argument that Africans are in a better position in america BECAUSE of slavery?
And that the original africans were translucent, not black?
Science isn't culturally offensive, losers with absofuckinglutely no education who are socially and professionally inept and can't keep a job threatenned by an entire race of people will be culturally offensive. They will try to permutate the idea of science incorrectly in order to sustain whatever semblance they have of self-esteem at the expense of that other race, and anyone who they meet that flies in the face of their "science" will cause them to go so far off kilter, that they come into a forum and rant and rave and preach hatred, eugenics and racism.
But enough about hitler...
Oh, I see.
We're going back to ad hominem. No problem.
How's the girlfriend? You got her beaten into mental submission still or is she allowed to see through your never-ending guilt trips yet?
You neurotic Peter Pan.
Okay, you almost have the definition of "theory" correct... a theory starts out as a hypothesis, which is the general "best guess" that you wrongly assumed I thought theory was... a hypothesis has NO data to back it up... once evidence is gathered and experiments are conducted, if the hypothesis still holds true, then it becomes a "theory"... still it isn't a fact... just like "guilty" or "not guilty" is not a fact of guilt of innocence... but a CONCLUSION based on the AVAILABLE evidence... if this theory is tested enough times with evidence nearly exhausted that provides enough correllation AND it is accepted by other scientists, then it can become LAW... once again, even a law is not a fact... there are really no facts or proofs in science, other than mathematics... laws are just nearly indisputable because evidence hasn't been found to contradict the conclusions... checkmate.
Why do you have to put quotes around "fact?" Is there any doubt?
You're both wrong... go see the explanation I gave menaz.
Theories can never become fact... only laws, which aren't facts in the empirical sense. Laws just haven't been disproven yet. Theories are fraught with possibilities, inaccuracies, and other areas of doubt. Scientists create theories that contradict and challenge other theories all the time. Laws stand alone without such challenges, but that doesn't make them fact.
You guys must have been sleeping in junior high science classes.
THE ONLY EXACT SCIENCE IS MATHEMATICS.
That's it... it's the only field where proof is attainable.
Not necessarily... you can feel guilty and still do nothing to rectify your transgressions.
You lose me here... like Nislanif says, maybe I'm too "ignorant."
Justifying racism through science helps to erase any possible guilt... because when it's justified, it's not "wrong"... therefore, no guilt. Blacks are supposed to be enslaved because they're not really human. They're inferior, so how can it be "inhumane?"
Why is that so hard to understand? [dunno]
He slipped up and said it jokingly in my presence once and I made him leave his own studio.
Fuck the ad hominems. I'd rather do this site and the world a favor and beat the shit outta you. But I'm tired of you ducking me (and you know good and damn well what I mean...)
As one of the few people who know you the best out of the 100,000 people on this site an in person, I'm telling you: get ya life straight. You need to go GET a girl before you talk about anyone elses. Learn to keep them, too. Go TO school before you try to correct anyone. Your revisionist history and complete lack of science is not laughable, it's concerning.
Last but not least: Build bridges instead of burning them. Hope you aint squander all that money I paid you before you burned THAT bridge/mealticket. You ALMOST lost all of it back to me had you not gotten me my sessions when you did. Woulda only cost me 35 bucks. I make that in about 35 minutes...
Now I'mma ignore you before you make me have to come find you.
I’d snuff you the fuck out, pussy.
Good posts, Ignorant.
Jesus would be so proud!
That's not check mate. i'm the one who's been trying to explain this concept to you.
Yet in the highlighted part you still managed not to understand. There are facts but no absolute certainties which is alot different than saying no facts in science as you just claimed. However what you did get correct was laws are not facts. Because a scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it. At least you now comprehended that much.
1.) Do yourself a favor and accept the education I gave you. No reason to create a straw man. You indeed implied a theory meant speculation or guess if you will. Thus, you erroneously implied evolution was pretty much as such. What you are now doing is arguing evolution is a law which is a step up from speculation theory but still your conclusion was invaild. Do not misrepersent my intent.
a.) A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.
b.) A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.
c.) A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.
1.) Scientific facts, Laws, and theories are three different statements. What you'll most likely never be able to do is present equal or more evidence that goes against biological evolution being a fact. Refusing to acknowledge biological evolution as a fact means you do not give your provisional consent. Which means you must have a different law describing a different Scientific fact which perverses mine. If you don't, then you are pretty much discrediting biological evolution as a fact, based on nothing more than your mere conjecture. Which is pretty much dogma.
2.) No matter what you think to the contrary biological Evolution is a fact. Good luck trying to use factless conjecture to convince people biological evolution isn't a fact.
3.) One can disprove theories of mechanisms. e.g. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair. WHY? because FACTS do not go away just because scientist debate the theories of mechanisms that explain them. Gravity is a fact much like biological evolution is a fact. Something tells me you flunked your junior high general Science classes or your teachers erroneously taught you the basics as most of them tend to do.
recap:Scientists understand the machanisms which explain evolution is a theory not a fact. but I want to know do you accept biological evolution as a FACT? I'm not offering you the perpetual truth here, which I distinguished quite clearly in my first reply to you. What I'm telling you is biological evolution is a fact.
^So essentially because I have a healthy amount of skepticism (as most fair scientists have) with regard to theories, then I have a problem? I'm the one not able to accept "scientific fact?"
I never once implied that a theory was simply a guess. I know what a theory is. That's why I said you were wasting your time trying to explain it to me. I know that a theory is stronger than a hypothesis. I know that a theory is backed by evidence... however, the evidence and the corroboration DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT.
That's what you and Nislanif wrote. You are both wrong.
But don't take my word for it... ask any trained scientist. I'm not a scientist by profession, but I do love science. I have more than a layman's understanding of it.
I don't know how else to explain it you. Why are there sooo many theories of the universe's creation? If a theory was a fact, then there should only be one, right? There's like dozens. The Big Bang has been accepted and then refuted... now it's accepted again.
But when a lot of scientists accept a theory among other theories that describe the same thing, it becomes a "school of thought." A theory is an OPINION... an educated one, but an opinion nonetheless. Boy, I bet that got your juices going.
Oh, and how would you differentiate the meanings of "describe" and "explain?"
I thought that was funny.
Even HE had to go after heretics of HIS day. However I think he'd be proud of my restraint...
Separate names with a comma.