Why Are Scientists Overwhelmingly on The Left?

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 207
#151
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Can you please explain what being an “alpha male” has to do with academia?
Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?

If every study confirms the “liberal mindset” then isn’t that a strong indication that it is correct?
Like the way every study by the tobacco industry confirmed that tobacco was healthy?

Or do you believe reality has an obligation to remain neutral when it comes to political issues?
Reality is neutral. Always has been. Always will be. Reality will confirm whatever the truth is. The first casualty of politics is truth.
#152
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
If you are asserting that selecting choice A  is correct or "more likely" to be correct because 999 is greater than one, then that is informed by your feelings; that is not medicine; that is not science; that is not statistical; that is not logical.
What if it turned out that the one doctor got confused and checked the wrong box, so now it’s 1000-0? Does that change anything? Serious question.

You can Google the actual statistics. On the show when the contestant asked the audience they turned out to be right 95% of the time and almost none of those examples had 99.9% agreement among actual experts, so claiming you are not more likely to be correct by going with them is just factually, objectively false.

You really seem obsessed with avoiding argumentum ad populum but don’t seem to understand when it is a logical fallacy vs when it’s not.
#153
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?
Yes, I understand that. Why do you bring that into the conversation? What does that actually have to do with academia? 

Like the way every study by the tobacco industry confirmed that tobacco was healthy?
Yes, until someone other than tobacco companies started funding them.

Beyond this fallacious example, what is your point, that study results mean nothing because humans are not perfect?

Reality is neutral. Always has been. Always will be. Reality will confirm whatever the truth is. The first casualty of politics is truth.
Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing. Reality is objective, not neutral.

So yes, it is certainly possible that one side could be wrong all the time, in fact it’s not even implausible. All it takes is to start with the wrong foundation, from there everything else falls apart.

#154
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Advertisers have even taken notice. Fox News prime time is famous for its ads praying on the gullibility of its audience and selling miracle cures. The founder of ScotteVest certainly noticed when he called fox viewers gullible idiots, and then there’s the whole Ivermectin fiasco…

There is no equivalent to this on the left. The closest you can find is the issue with policing statistics, but this is no where near the same level of nuttery.
You really are a useful idiot for these ultra-capitalist legacy medias. You see how garbage Fox News is (yes, I agree with you) because you don't see all the other legacy medias doing the same thing.

ALL these legacy media types are lie machines. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Sky News, ABC etc. It doesn't matter which political side or angle you take with your politics. You've got a lie machine that runs THE SAME STORY (at exactly the same time as the others -- funny that) but with your political spin just so they can get you heated. It never occurs to you how controlled your non-Fox News legacy media is because you're too upset with Fox News, Donald Trump or a confederate statue to notice.

And so you get put into a little box wherein these legacy media types control your mind. They tell you what story you should care about. You DON'T get to see raw, unedited footage from an impartial entity, or stories that are only reported by one media outlet. The "left" media tells a story, and the "right" media tells the opposite story. That's all you're allowed to think about that day. You get fired up for your side and the legacy medias get you hooked on "the news". They don't give a damn about how truthful their stories are because all that matters is your eyes are watching the screen. Just look up ANY of these legacy medias on Politifact and you'll see that they aren't telling the truth the whole time, let alone most of the time PolitiFact .

Never mind that more black people die taking baths in bathtubs per year than police shootings. George Floyd is proof of out-of-control systemic racism in the police force that is killing black people everywhere because CNN told you so. You're now angry enough to riot, burn things down and turn a part of America into 4th world CHAZ.

Never mind that the election wasn't stolen from Donald Trump. The government is overrun by left-wing people rigging the election because Fox News told you so. You're now angry enough to storm the capital and get shot by special forces.

You have your political side. Legacy media spins stories with half-truths and lies to whip you into a frenzy. You then get angry about things which makes you watch legacy media even more. Some people get so angry they need to break things or hurt people, which gives legacy media more things to report on. Legacy media makes lots of money with advertising due to you watching so much. Rinse and repeat. That's your function as a useful idiot for these legacy media, ultra-capitalist types.

Donald Trump was absolutely right about one thing: fake news. However, that *also* applies to all the lying stories that were positive about him, too. Stop watching these controlled, lying narratives designed to control your thoughts. Turn the programming off.
#155
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
What if it turned out that the one doctor got confused and checked the wrong box, so now it’s 1000-0? Does that change anything? Serious question.
No.

You can Google the actual statistics. On the show when the contestant asked the audience they turned out to be right 95% of the time and almost none of those examples had 99.9% agreement among actual experts, so claiming you are not more likely to be correct by going with them is just factually, objectively false.
No, it isn't. The fact that 95% of the instances in which the audience was polled, the majority happened to have coincided with the correct answer doesn't affect the probability of one's selecting the correct answer (i.e. 25% without life line, 50% when two of the choices are eliminated.) And you're confused over the focus of our dispute: no one is stating that the 9 out of 10 doctors can't be right, or aren't right; I'm stating that presuming 9 out of 10 doctors are (or likely to be) right because they're 9 out 10 doctors is logically fallacious.

You really seem obsessed with avoiding argumentum ad populum but don’t seem to understand when it is a logical fallacy vs when it’s not.
Seem is not an argument.

I have no intention of continuing this exchange. You obviously do not grasp the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Anything I say at this point will just be redundant. So, enjoy the rest of your day, sir.

#156
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias
So 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say that 2+2=4 and one says it is 5.2 is argumentum ad populum?
#157
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
It is if you refuse to see the 1 mathematicians proof due to "feelings"
#158
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Consensus is always censorship of science to varying degrees. It's axiomatic, and history is rife with predictable examples.
#159
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
So 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say that 2+2=4 and one says it is 5.2 is argumentum ad populum?
No. Stating that "2+2=4" is (or more likely to be) correct because 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say so is argumentum ad populum.
#160
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ethang5
Like the way every study by the tobacco industry confirmed that tobacco was healthy?
This was due to corporate right-wing influence.

Try again.
#161
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
The fact that 95% of the instances in which the audience was polled, the majority happened to have coincided with the correct answer doesn't affect the probability of one's selecting the correct answer
They didn’t just “happen” to coincide with the correct answer. It turns out that human beings carry with them knowledge of the world they live in *making it more likely* that when a large enough sample is polled on a question of fact the crowd will get the right answer.

Why is this so difficult for you? Do you really think knowledge either doesn’t exist or is not useful when it comes to determining the correct answer?

And BTW to claim that you are not more likely to be correct by going along with the audience when the audience is correct 95% of the time is just plain stupid. You really need to spend some time thinking about why you can’t just admit when you are wrong, you are smarter then that.

And you're confused over the focus of our dispute: no one is stating that the 9 out of 10 doctors can't be right, or aren't right; I'm stating that presuming 9 out of 10 doctors are (or likely to be) right because they're 9 out 10 doctors is logically fallacious.

Clearly, it is you who doesn’t understand what this conversation is about. If you and I were debating whether masks are effective and my argument was that I’m right because the doctors say so, that is argumentum ad populum and therefore logically fallacious. But that’s not what this conversation is about. I’m not arguing that I'm right, I’m arguing that I am more reasonable to accept the scientific consensus than to not.

The most telling thing about our conversation is that you never offered an answer to the question; choice A (99.9% say yes) or B (0.1% say yes)? But of course you didn’t, because everyone reading this thread knows damn well you would have taken choice A for no reason other than because you know you are more likely to be correct by going with the 99.9% consensus than the 0.1%.

Another telling part of our conversation was when I used examples of expertise you would rely on (mechanic, accountant, etc.) and rather than addressing the central point I was making you responded to each one individually explaining why you wouldn’t rely on that particular type of expertise (“I do my own taxes”), wiggling your way out of having to confront the main idea; expertise has value.

The fact that I have to repeatedly point this out is absurd and should really make you think.

#162
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
So 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say that 2+2=4 and one says it is 5.2 is argumentum ad populum?
I really want to know what he do if he landed in legal trouble. Apparently he wouldn’t hire a lawyer since any rando off the street could offer legal advice and be just as likely to be correct.
#163
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
I said, "enjoy your day, sir."
#164
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?

Yes, I understand that. Why do you bring that into the conversation?
Scientists are mostly liberal because they are created in academia which is top heavy with beta men.

Whatdoes that actually have to do with academia? 
Those who can, do, those who cannot, teach.

Like the way every study by the tobacco industry confirmed that tobacco was healthy?

Yes, until someone other than tobacco companies started funding them.
Sorry, I never provide fake studies as evidence for my arguments.

Beyond this fallacious example, what is your point, that study results mean nothing because humans are not perfect?
That studies involving human nature cannot possibly be all one way. If every study actually confirmed liberalism, would that not be "perfect"?

Reality is neutral. Always has been. Always will be. Reality will confirm whatever the truth is. The first casualty of politics is truth.

Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing. Reality is objective, not neutral.
Objectivity in ethics imply reality. They are synonymous in the realm of morality.

So yes, it is certainly possible that one side could be wrong all the time, in fact it’s not even implausible. All it takes is to start with the wrong foundation, from there everything else falls apart.
Thank you for confirming my point of why liberals don't question the dubious depth of studies all confirming liberalism.
#165
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
The point was that no real study on human nature can be 100% one way. Who influences the study is immaterial.
#166
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Thank you for confirming my point of why liberals don't question the dubious depth of studies all confirming liberalism.
Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.

And also because we recognize that reality doesn’t care what you think about it, which is why it’s not neutral.  

You’re either right or wrong, you should spend some time focusing on that rather than victimizing yourself.

#167
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
I’ve always wondered that. 
Yeah you need to establish that scientists are indeed "overwhelmingly on the left" before you can make an OP like this. Anyone responding to your question begged premise needs to rethink just how crappy and illogical your OP is.

So feel free to do that, champ.
#168
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.
How about focusing on what industry they are in?

Yes, until someone other than tobacco companies started funding them.
Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.

...it is certainly possible that one side could be wrong all the time
It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.

...you should spend some time focusing on that rather than victimizing yourself.
Thanks for the advice Jedthro. I won't ask how noticing that certain character types gravitate to certain careers (something you agreed with) is self- victimizing. I've never been able to follow loony liberal illogic.
#169
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.
How about focusing on what industry they are in?
How about not. Focus on the merits

Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.
Or, you could just pay attention and make a honest attempt to understand what the person you are conversing with is saying.

We are already in agreement on the merits or lack there of on the tobacco studies, that’s why you brought it up. So I explained *why* those studies were flawed, which is not because academia just got it wrong as you are implying.

 It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.
WTF? Please explain to me how it is impossible for one side to be wrong all the time.

I can’t wait to be enlightened.
#170
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.
How about focusing on what industry they are in?

How about not.
You brought up how study conclusions change when other companies funded them. Are you to decide focus then?

Focus on the merits
Studies that always confirm leftist positions are bogus.

Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.

Or, you could just pay attention and make a honest attempt to understand what the person you are conversing with is saying.
I quoted what you said Pedro.

We are already in agreement on the merits or lack there of on the tobacco studies, that’s why you brought it up.
Nope. I used the tobacco study as an example of studies that always confirm one position. It could have been a study on whether same sex partners make good parents, or whether atheists are smarter than theists. All bogus.

So I explained *why* those studies were flawed, which is not because academia just got it wrong as you are implying.
Those studies are flawed because they are guided by politics, not science.

It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.

WTF? Please explain to me how it is impossible for one side to be wrong all the time. I can’t wait to be enlightened.
I write, but you pretend not to see. No studies on human nature can all confirm one position. Not only is it not logical, but reality refutes it.

If your skepticism is not raised at all current studies confirming leftist positions, you're too far gone into partisanship to be helped by a non-professional.
#171
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Studies that always confirm leftist positions are bogus.

Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.
Yep, studies telling you that you are wrong, must be wrong. Thank you for proving my point. Again.

Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter?
Yes, the merits of every study matter first and foremost.  They do not however matter in this conversation because we already agree that the studies were bogus.

The source of funding matters when you are trying to understand *why* the study got out wrong.

Do you understand this now?

I quoted what you said
You can quote my words all day long, that doesn’t mean you are actually responding to them.

Nope. I used the tobacco study as an example of studies that always confirm one position
Ethang, do you accept the tobacco studies you referenced as valid? Yes or No?

I write, but you pretend not to see. No studies on human nature can all confirm one position. Not only is it not logical, but reality refutes it.
We’re not talking about human nature. This conversation began by you talking about studies that confirm leftists positions and how they can’t always be right. There is no such thing as “right” when we’re talking about human nature and your example was tobacco studies, which has nothing to do with human nature.

Sounds like someone is trying to wiggle out of the fact that they are just wrong and won’t admit it.

So I explained *why* those studies were flawed, which is not because academia just got it wrong as you are implying.
Those studies are flawed because they are guided by politics, not science.

It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.
This is just plain stupid and really makes me wonder why I bother with you.

Tobacco studies were not guided by politics, they were guided by capitalism. Tobacco companies funded the studies to convince people their products were safe so they would buy them. How do you not know this?

But it’s the second line that’s most telling. What the hell is “leftism”? Sounds like something completely made up by someone so insecure about their views that they need to cast everyone who disagrees with them as having some sort of mental condition to avoid the burden of actually trying to understand what other people are saying. And you’ve made all of this evident the entire thread.
#172
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
[God "exists" as a matter of definition] may or may not be a logically coherent claim
A definition of the term, "exist," incorporates spiritual being. God is a spiritual being; therefore God "exists." Lexically speaking, the dispute is resolved rather simply. If however we intend to have more fun with with the notion and explore the scope of existence and define logical parameters, I suppose we could. But as you'd recall, I'm a proponent of, how did you put it, ontological bedrock. I'd simply repeat what I've consistently stated: everything exists, and nonexistence is irrational, much more, value statements which seek to give it information.
sO, basICally, god "exists" with the same validity as lochnessbigfootspacealiens.

Is there no room in your ontology for a distinction between "concrete nouns" and "abstract nouns" ?
#173
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?
Try this [LINK]
#174
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
1. Non-alpha men mitriculated to academia.
2. These men tended to hire non-alpha men like themselves.
3. Soon, academia was majority non-alpha men.
4. Non-alpha men tend to be liberal.
4. Scientists are grown in academia.
Aren't all the "alpha-males" too busy bow-hunting to meticulously document double-blind randomized placebo controlled longitudinal physiological studies ?

It takes a certain type of person to "do science" and those people are usually called "obsessive compulsive nerdgeekspodboffins".
#175
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
You’re a contestant on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’. You are asked a question pertaining to the field of medicine. Being that you have no medical expertise and have no idea what the answer is, you use your lifeline to ask a crowd of 1,000 doctors. 999 of them tell you its choice A. 1 says it’s choice B. There are no other choices.

For $1 million dollars, what is your final answer and why?
If all 1,000 doctors are "equally qualified" to provide an answer, then it doesn't matter whose counsel I take. The probability of my selecting the correct answer would be still be 50% whether I select choice A or choice B. The fact that 999 doctors chose choice A doesn't make it more reliable or "likely to be" correct as a consequence of comparing the number of doctors who chose choice A to the one doctor who chose choice B. If you are asserting that selecting choice A  is correct or "more likely" to be correct because 999 is greater than one, then that is informed by your feelings; that is not medicine; that is not science; that is not statistical; that is not logical.
It's also worth considering that the QUESTION ITSELF is unlikely to be about a subject "highly disputed and controversial within the medical community" the QUESTION ITSELF is most likely something from a well respected and well referenced textbook that 999 out of 1000 doctors would generally agree upon.
#176
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
sO, basICally, god "exists" with the same validity as lochnessbigfootspacealiens.
God exists with the same (ontological) validity as anything else.

Is there no room in your ontology for a distinction between "concrete nouns" and "abstract nouns" ?
The "your" is naturally presumed without mention, isn't it? Yes, there is no room for distinction between "concrete" and "abstract." I value scientific integrity no more than I do spiritual integrity.

It's also worth considering that the QUESTION ITSELF is unlikely to be about a subject "highly disputed and controversial within the medical community" the QUESTION ITSELF is most likely something from a well respected and well referenced textbook that 999 out of 1000 doctors would generally agree upon.
Well stated. All the more reason argumentum ad populum is a fallacious mode of argument. If virtually all are just regurgitating that which they've read out of text book, then it doesn't matter whether the regurgitation comes from one or 999.
#177
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Yep, studies telling you that you are wrong, must be wrong. Thank you for proving my point. Again
If you're going to dodge the questions Hosea, it's smarter to not respond.

...we already agree that the studies were bogus.
And why were those studies bogus genius? Could it be that because they ALL confirmed the tobacco industry's position?

Or, you could just pay attention and make a honest attempt to understand what the person you are conversing with is saying.
I quoted what you said Pedro.

You can quote my words all day long, that doesn’t mean you are actually responding to them.
So you say I should "make an honest attempt to understand what the person you are conversing with is saying." So I point out that quoting a person is an excellent way of showing you are making a honest attempt to understand what the person is saying.

You come back with the non-sequitur that I'm not "responding" to your words. So is it "understanding" or "responses" you want? Everytime I point out some illogic in your posts, you ooze to yet another claim.

First you claim I'm not trying to  understand what you're saying, when I show you that I am, you ooze to a different claim of me not responding. You argue dishonestly, but I will beat anyway.

We’re not talking about human nature.
Sure we are. Politics is human nature.

There is no such thing as “right” when we’re talking about human nature...
There is such a thing as "right" when we're talking about studies.

This conversation began by you talking about studies that confirm leftists positions and how they can’t always be right. 
Your "they" above correctly refers to the studies, not the human nature. Dishonesty is a piss-poor logical tool.

...and your example was tobacco studies, which has nothing to do with human nature
But smoking does.

Sounds like someone is trying to wiggle out of the fact that they are just wrong and won’t admit it.
Sounds like you.

Those studies are flawed because they are guided by politics, not science.

It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.

This is just plain stupid and really makes me wonder why I bother with you.
You bother enough to lie.

Tobacco studies were not guided by politics, they were guided by capitalism.
It can be both. But at least we agree on 2 things here.
1. It was NOT science, and 
2. They were wrong because they all confirmed a single position all the time.

Tobaccocompanies funded the studies to convince people their products were safe so they would buy them. How do you not know this?
The exact same motivation underlies every bogus "study" currently confirming every liberal talking point.

What the hell is “leftism”?
The insanely stupid idea that reality is determined by how a person feels.

So a man can become a woman if he feels he's a woman.
A baby can be morally murdered if the mother feels she doesn't want it.
A person can ignore the immigration laws of a country if he feels like moving.
White people are the evil privileged if you feel they are.
Homosexuality is moral because homosexuals feel it is.

You’ve made your belief in this position evident the entire thread.
#178
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Yes, there is no room for distinction between "concrete" and "abstract." I value scientific integrity no more than I do spiritual integrity.
It sounds like your primary concern is logical-coherence.

PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD

IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
#179
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
So a man can'T act like and dress like a woman because it makes You feels uncomfortable.
A girl can'T choose whether or not to maintain her own pregnancy because it makes You feels bad.
A person can'T flee persecution and poverty because You feels afraid of scary dirty foreigners.
Some people are the evil and or privileged if You feels they are.
Homosexuality is immoral because the very thought of dicks in assholes makes You feels icky.
#180
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
If you're going to dodge the questions Hosea, it's smarter to not respond.
My god dude, learn to read. It was literally the next sentence.

“Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter?

Yes, the merits of every study matter first and foremost”

And why were those studies bogus genius? Could it be that because they ALL confirmed the tobacco industry's position?
I’m really starting to think you’re just trolling, no way this is serious.

The studies are not bogus because they confirmed the tobacco industry’s position, they are bogus because we know not only that they are wrong but we also know why they are wrong.

I know you would really love to dodge this entire thread because all of your original statements were nonsense talking points you didn’t bother to put any thought or research into, but I’m not going down this stupid path of debating tobacco studies with you as if everyone on earth doesn’t already know what happened there. Make your point or move on.

First you claim I'm not trying to  understand what you're saying, when I show you that I am, you ooze to a different claim of me not responding. You argue dishonestly, but I will beat anyway.
Why do I need to explain this to you?

Quoting someone does not mean you paid any attention to what they are saying nor does it mean your response addresses anything they said. Here, let me illustrate:

Person A: “Joe Biden is a terrible president cause he doesn’t care about Americans abroad”

Person B: “The sky is blue”

You see how that works?

We’re not talking about human nature.
Sure we are. Politics is human nature.
We’re not talking about politics. Clearly, you don’t pay attention.

There is no such thing as “right” when we’re talking about human nature...
There is such a thing as "right" when we're talking about studies.

This conversation began by you talking about studies that confirm leftists positions and how they can’t always be right.
Your "they" above correctly refers to the studies, not the human nature. Dishonesty is a piss-poor logical tool.

...and your example was tobacco studies, which has nothing to do with human nature
But smoking does.
Ok, I’m just going to stop here. I had forgotten why conversing with you was so pointless. Thoughtful conversation tends to include points which have a beginning, a middle, and an end. That’s why we tend to respond in paragraphs. But apparently you don’t have the bandwidth to soak it up, so you break everything into individual sentences stripping the point out of its context and completely distorting what the other person is saying. That’s why you don’t even know what this conversation is about.

I’m done, if you want to keep going you can have at it. Good day.