Thank you! In my haste I used precisely the wrong word. I should have said Geocentric.
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!"
Similarly, calling yourself a Democrat while following faithfully in the footsteps of corporatist Republicans does not make you a Democrat. Giving lip service to liberal issues while selling your constituents down the river in favor of big business does not make you a liberal. Just because you bought into the lie doesn't make the truth false.
Saying the party is not "left enough" when their candidate is decidedly "right" is an inadequate response. Enforcing the lie on others (saying that message should be buried) is beyond subversive. You are, I am sure unknowingly, acting like a fascist pig. Shout down and forcibly bury any dissent from the Party Narrative! No dissent from within! We must have a solid Front!
I sincerely think you should reconsider your position on this. This AC is asking for, in his own way, a more liberal, left leaning, candidate from the democrat party. Your response is to demean him and his mental faculties (moron) and then state he should be silenced in the public forum (deserved to get moderated down); his arguments not even discussed, and hidden from view. Frankly sir, your attitude disgust me. His self expression is more than valid in light of the facts. This is an issue that should be discussed, not only on its own merits, but also on the basis that this could very well be the reason why we have Donald motherfucking Trump as the president now. And I say that as a two-fold statement: not only that the proffered democrat candidate failed to beat the second most flawed presidential candidate in history, but also that the attitude of hiding any dissent and covering up any problems with the proffered candidate was prevalent from the top of the DNC down to the average everyday democrat voter.
Then again, maybe I am just a bitter Bernie supporter who should be silenced, dismissed, and modded down.
And this children is what we call the slippery slope.
Notice it is not only a flawless example of the fallacy, but also a flawless example of how many people actually think.
Yes, that is right children, many so-called humans actually think in logical fallacies. They allow the intensity of their baseless emotions to somehow derail logic from it's inexorable path.
No! We don't exterminate them! That would be inhumane. Logic dictates that we do not kill lesser species.
Woah, I am confused by what you just wrote.
You seem to be saying that if a bunch of scientists agree that *this* (whatever *this* is) is the way it is, but none of the experiments that prove that *this* is the way it is are reproducible, then we should just go with the consensus?
Soooo, Galileo had some experiments he could back up, but the other scientists at the time had a consensus view of the cosmos. Their results were not reproducible, his were. You seem to be arguing for heliocentrism based on consensus.
Essentially, your introduction of the concept of consensus based on results with a total lack of any comments on how reproducible those results are leaves me wondering just what you think the scientific method is predicated on.
I don't care how "cutting edge" the research is. If it can be successfully reproduced and is based on sound principles I would consider it first before any "consensus" based on what a bunch of people think but can't back up with reproducible results.
What a fucking GEM!!!! You had me at:
Abstract: The exponential dependence of resistivity on temperature in germanium is found to be a great big lie. My careful theoretical modeling and painstaking experimentation reveal 1) that my equipment is crap, as are all the available texts on the subject and 2) that this whole exercise was a complete waste of my time.
And kept delivering right through to the end! Thank you sir!
The diagram on the right side labeled: Fig. 1: Check this shit out.
Exactly right. If it is not reproducible, it is not "Science," period.
If, as others have written, your experiment is so finely predicated on the experimental set-up (using certain equipment, preparing samples or data in a certain way, etc.) then you need to document that so specifically that anyone can repeat it. Why, you ask, with an dumbfounded and incredulous look on your face? Because you could be introducing very specific bias in the way you set up your experiment. If it only works when you do it *just like this,* maybe the reason is that the experimental result is a direct consequence of your set-up and not an actual measurement of naturally occurring phenomena. I like to call it "measuring your equipment."
If you cannot, through your extensive documentation, re-create the experiment in another lab with completely different humans what you have published is essentially science fiction.
What happens is that when people don't get punished for the first few things, they start to realize that the normal limits don't apply, and the bad sorts start pushing the envelope. Eventually
beat an underperforming employee's head in with a baseball bat
Everyone knows that only liberal protesters at places like Berkeley and anti-Trump events are allowed to talk about and do that sort of thing.
There is a vast and fundamental difference between a "sexist asshole" and a repeat offending sexual predator.
If you are assaulted don't let the company you work for (or anyone else for that matter!) sweep it under the rug or talk you out of filing a police report. For the sake of yourself and others tell law enforcement.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo