The corvette is the best track car for the price by far, same with certain camaros. And I’m not talking about Nascar tracks, I mean nordschleife times.

I will. I plan on enjoying it. I hope you recognize that I’m doing this at your behest, equivalent to you eating the meat.

Also, have you ever considered that some people know where their meat comes from and know that it’s not being kept in horrible conditions? I don’t really care that it’s dying to feed me. Plants die to feed me too.

I’m not going to get into the environmental aspect as I know that veganism is better for the environment, but just shifting away from factory farmed red meat would be a huge positive change and then you don’t even piss off the majority of the population (that see you as a self-righteous shithead) :)

I prefer basing my opinions on logic, arguments, and facts over feelings. Your inability to articulate a response to certain arguments shows why this is still a debate. Further, you’re relying on the idea that something is crazy to you, therefore it should be to everybody, but that’s not how it works. There’s racist people that use this exact type of reasoning to support their racism.

E.G.

“Black people are less than white people”

logical counterpoint logical counterpoint

“WTF do you need a reasoning that black people are less than white people”

If your position is really stronger, then it shouldn’t be hard for you to make arguments in favor of it.

Ok then, so people who vote in US elections are inherently evil? - a more analogous example

People who consume bananas are inherently evil?

People that have smartphones are inherently evil?

Those things are all choices. How about another one? Lithium mining is a bad system that negatively impacts the environment. Therefore, people that buy electric cars are evil and bad for the environment, right?!?

I disagree with the second part. That means everybody living in a first world country is inherently a bad person just by accident of their birth location. We’re well past the point of choosing whether or not we participate in most systems, and at the end of the day, somebody needs to do the job of law enforcement.

You provided exactly zero reasoning for most of your statements and have now taken a condescending position. People like you are why we can’t have nice things in the world.

Some do. Some, like Shaq or Ryan Reynolds (or Kanye) use their money to invest in other companies. Ryan Reynolds coming out and saying Nazi shit would probably be bad for Mint, just like Ye’s controversy was bad for Yeezy, just like Elon’s controversy is bad for Tesla.

Just realized clean drinking water, electricity, transport infrastructure, etc. isn’t important. The things you think are important to the world are only important because most people in first world countries have never had to face true hardship in their lives as a result of technological advancement.

I’m not talking about string theory. Scientists disagree about things at a high level all the time. It’s how the fields move forward. They don’t disagree on the fundamentals though, which social sciences have a tendency to.

I’m not here to say the social sciences are useless. In fact I’ve stated several times that I think people need to be able to understand them and use them. I’m arguing something different entirely and I don’t know why you keep strawmanning me. It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.

I think you just don’t understand what I’m saying. All that may be true but then you would need to control for ALL those variables for good science which you just cannot do in the social sciences.

They’re important, just not really good science. They’re useful, but not in the way physics is. There aren’t competing theories of the most basic levels of understanding in the hard sciences. There are throughout the entirety of the fields of the social sciences.

I don’t think she does cracks technically, right? They’re repacks I thought

There’s a reason we have realism in political science though. Theory isnt the truth of how things play out in real life, especially when it comes to the social sciences. We need descriptions just as much, if not moreso, than prescriptions.

I agree that theory is important tho, so I’ll do my part by linking a free resource: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5GYwuvmAD_VyV6w5aFnnUw

Lots of words to say I have no proof and provide only conjecture.

Cause the middle school one is the quadratic formula. You use it to factor 2nd degree polynomials. You don’t solve for a, b, and c, you just plug them in.

Seems more like religion and blind belief to me. I agree that you can’t define consciousness in terms of particles… yet. But to say it’s impossible is a huge leap. High level biology is basically all physics and chem for this reason; it’s emergent from the 2 together. That doesn’t mean that you can’t define biological processes in terms of their chemical and physical activities though. It’s kind of like free will: we think we have it because we make ‘choices’ but at the end of the day our brain is just a series of particles, so where does the free will come from? Are we just deluding ourselves?

Can you provide an academic paper? I think I understand the concept, but I fail to see it being meaningful with relation to the examples I posed of why the social sciences aren’t scientific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlK51P0vuc4

That literally has nothing to do with what Im talking about, which you should really know given your username. I’m done here.

I do read theory. I just know theory isnt the be all end all of understanding the world. If it was, that would be great, but you just happen to agree with this guys philosophical musings. Besides that, you call me a liberal when I’m literally not but whatever.

You’re arguing with an imaginary friend and a beautiful strawman opinion you made for him to hold.

I never said anything about Haiti, but comparing anybody living in a first world country (the vast majority of this site’s users and where such a revolution is more likely to take place) to a slave is disingenuous at absolute best.

I also don’t think that Dessalines needed to massacre the remaining french people on the island. I’m willing to bet I have a better und3rstanding of the haitian revolution than you. You know they reinstated slavery within a couple of years, right? Read some Trouillot.

🤡

Wdym

Ah, yes, all societies and situations are homogeneous I forgot.

Besides that, people deserve to die for playing by the rules of the system in which we live? Why not change the rules to prevent abuse?

Clown