"It's Groundhog Day.. again.."

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

FYI, science is not intended to be democratic. So, choosing one side because it has 90+% support is ****in stupid.

that makes so little sense that it boggles the mind.

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, it should if you think science is intended to be democratic.

Once, 90+% of scientists thought the earth was flat...didn't make them right, now did it.

Once, 90+% of scientists thought leeches cured all kinds of diseases...didn't make the right, now did it.

See, so choosing one side because it has 90+% support, is stupid. ****ing stupid.

um...i frankly don't know why i am even bothering to respond to such juvenile reductionism but oh well......i'll bite.

so do you think we would be better served by going with the minority of scientists all the time or by just ignoring science all together? do you want me to list all of the millions of things that the majority of scientists have been right about over the years?

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Juvenile reductionism? Uhm, I think choosing one side because it has 90% support is a good definition of that. LOL

And, no, I don't need any education in science or the history of science from someome who thinks 90+% support = right. And, fwiw, many things science has been right about over the years started out as skeptical and minority positions. But of course, you would have to have some education to appreciate that.


PS: nice strawmen "minority...all the time...ignoring science"

i just thought you should know that i have a masters degree in microbiology and am currently working on PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. I just showed this entire thread to some of the people in the lab where i work and your ignorance gave us all a good laugh. i know you won't care about this at all, because we are all scientists and since the vast majority of us laughed at you, it must mean (according to your logic) that we are wrong!
you might want to consider the fact that you obviously have no idea what the term strawman means, and you are using it very incorrectly. i tell you this only because i don't want you to use the term with all your PhD friends and look foolish.
have a nice day.

[randallscott35]

My fault for for the disagreement. I didn't realize I have no education or reason for ever feeling different than the "masses."....avance-you lose so much from your argument when you take the tact you do.

[randallscott35]

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

Essentially the conclusion of this paper is what I believe....But I have no right to b/c I wasn't a science major and can't think for myself....I'm going to yell to my mom now to come and tie my shoes so I can go outside and play in the cold.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that CO2 gas has a greenhouse effect, because they have presented no understandable mechanism or process that explains how CO2 gas in the atmosphere increases heat on earth. The greenhouse metaphor that is successful for water droplets in clouds appears to be a failure when applied to CO2 gas. If we receive evasions instead of answers and explanations from scientists on this crucial question, we have a right to conclude that global warming theory does not make sense, and we can consign it to the accumulating heap of junk science, along with the discarded theory of global cooling of thirty years ago.

[Downthestretch55]

Oh the theories!!! All this talk about CO2! Geesh!!!
Nobody seems to be looking at methane. We all know that a lot of it is produced by cattle. So, my theory to reduce global warming is to give all the mooing critters massive quantities of "Beano" with their regular feedings.
Cow farts stink!!!!
Now, here are some other "crack-pot" theories....
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/sci...change.report/

[avance2000]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Uhm, a strawman fallacy is a misrepresentation of an argument with said misrpresentatation being easy to refute (but you don't necessarily have to explicitly refute it...a simplistic misrepresentation is often enough), which you have done at least 3 times wrt what I have actually been saying. Not that wikipedia is a great source, but this entry happens to be pretty correct (Straw Man). Enjoy.

Also, you represent a classic example of what is wrong with modern science.

FYI, the folks in your lab were prolly laughin at you...

Piled higher and Deeper - like that isn't old!?!? lol jk

Its funny when haughty folks like this get cunty and end up saying foolish stuff...

okay i am done with this argument. it is fruitless to argue with someone who is going to cite wikipedia as a source, fails to understand basic scientific principles, and uses "words" like prolly.
if you want to make fun of PhD's and call people fun names like "cunty" be my guest. i don't have my PhD yet so you are really just making fun of all your supposed friends that have PhDs. although i find it extremely hard to believe that anyone with that level of education would associate with someone of your obviously limited education.
again i wish you a good day and i hope that in the future we can limit our interaction to horses since we obviously disagree about many other issues. as a parting note on this thread i will only ask those of you who "don't believe" in global warming to examine studies conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject before dismissing it. you may find the level of evidence astonishing.
this has been a fun but contentious thread.
now back to the ponies!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by avance2000

okay i am done with this argument. it is fruitless to argue with someone who is going to cite wikipedia as a source, fails to understand basic scientific principles, and uses "words" like prolly.
if you want to make fun of PhD's and call people fun names like "cunty" be my guest. i don't have my PhD yet so you are really just making fun of all your supposed friends that have PhDs. although i find it extremely hard to believe that anyone with that level of education would associate with someone of your obviously limited education.
again i wish you a good day and i hope that in the future we can limit our interaction to horses since we obviously disagree about many other issues. as a parting note on this thread i will only ask those of you who "don't believe" in global warming to examine studies conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject before dismissing it. you may find the level of evidence astonishing.
this has been a fun but contentious thread.
now back to the ponies!

avance,
I almost always agree with your arguments (at least the ones I remember) and I almost NEVER agree with your style. I agreed with your anti-Bernardini rants, your posts on the Donn, and I agree with your position on Global Warming. But as a fellow academic/grad student (although not in science) I have to say that I think it is people like you that give us a bad reputation. You know you are right about this, and you must know that most people on this board agree with you. Why the pretensious air? Why do you always let yourself get caught up in these shouting matches? You seem like a smart guy, but you need to learn some tact. Will insulting people's level of education really help you win this argument? I doubt it.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Its funny when haughty folks like this get cunty and end up saying foolish stuff...

Please watch your mouth B (or in this case, your fingers). If you don't gots one yourself, it's a pretty offensive word to use in mixed company and the use of it tends to make me, at least, think a lot less of the user (and you know I like you a lot). Thanks; much appreciated.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

No offense intended. It is/was my understanding that the word is used in a similar way as "cocky" (ie in certain contexts, it is not a disparaging reference related to genitalia). Obviously, it is a slang term,but that is my understanding...and, I could be wrong...

I use that word when I get really ticked off.

I guess that's not very lady-like of me.

[Danzig]

hey, maybe next we can have a darwin 'discussion'! those are always dull, boring, and unemotional.

and i too hate the word above. not quite sure why. i've been known to use other foul words..but that one just bugs me for some reason. maybe a sign of insanity?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

No offense intended. It is/was my understanding that the word is used in a similar way as "cocky" (ie in certain contexts, it is not a disparaging reference related to genitalia). Obviously, it is a slang term,but that is my understanding...and, I could be wrong...

Not in a billion years did I think I'd be having a discussion on the "c-word," as it were, on DT! Well, life is full of surprises.

No, it's not a synonym. Honestly, it's up there with the "n-word" in terms of insult when used by someone to whom it can't really ever apply, and it's really because there's not a matching word for the male anatomy in terms of pejorative. "Cocky," after all, is not always an insult, but "cunty" is. When we praise someone we say they have balls, but to criticize someone by implying they are behaving like a vagina-- well, you see?

Mind you, I don't have an issue with women using the word about each other, because, well, takes one to know one. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. And if there really was a matching word for men, that made them feel as bad as they make women feel when they use that term, it might be different. But there isn't.

Though I actually got called the n-word last weekend, proving there's a first time for everything. I was called a "white, red-haired n*****," to be specific. And I did imagine the man who called me it going home, smacking himself on the forehead and saying to himself, "C***! That's what I meant! White, red-haired c***!"

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not in a billion years did I think I'd be having a discussion on the "c-word," as it were, on DT! Well, life is full of surprises.

No, it's not a synonym. Honestly, it's up there with the "n-word" in terms of insult when used by someone to whom it can't really ever apply, and it's really because there's not a matching word for the male anatomy in terms of pejorative. "Cocky," after all, is not always an insult, but "cunty" is. When we praise someone we say they have balls, but to criticize someone by implying they are behaving like a vagina-- well, you see?

Mind you, I don't have an issue with women using the word about each other, because, well, takes one to know one. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. And if there really was a matching word for men, that made them feel as bad as they make women feel when they use that term, it might be different. But there isn't.

Though I actually got called the n-word last weekend, proving there's a first time for everything. I was called a "white, red-haired n*****," to be specific. And I did imagine the man who called me it going home, smacking himself on the forehead and saying to himself, "C***! That's what I meant! White, red-haired c***!"

I think it sorta does make you a hypocrite, for what it's worth (at least as it pertains to this conversation), just like it makes any african-american a hypocrite who uses that 'we can, you can't' double standard for any one word. Anyone you know ever called someone a "dick?" Same thing, only who cares?

when i hear the word 'cunty' i hear it as a synonym for the word 'bitchy,' which in and of itself is not a patently offensive word.

and this coming from mr. semantically sensitive too....

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I think it sorta does make you a hypocrite, for what it's worth (at least as it pertains to this conversation), just like it makes any african-american a hypocrite who uses that 'we can, you can't' double standard for any one word. Anyone you know ever called someone a "dick?" Same thing, only who cares?

when i hear the word 'cunty' i hear it as a synonym for the word 'bitchy,' which in and of itself is not a patently offensive word.

and this coming from mr. semantically sensitive too....

Well I would say there IS a difference. The difference is that somebody does care. If we don't care if people call us a "dick" then it is okay to use the word. If women are offended by the word - and many are - than it shouldn't be used. It seems strange to tell somebody "You should not be offended by this or that, because I am not offended by this other thing." If they are offended by it I say fine.....let's not use it. I don't really care what their reason is.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

I guess my point is, when someone says "cocky", I never thought the word had anything to do with a penis, and when I have heard "cunty" (in a similar context), I never thought it had anything to do with a vagina.

Sort of like how "niggardly" has absolutely nothing to do with a racial slur or racial sterotype of a minority.

Like I said, this perspective likely stems from the context in which I have heard "cunty" used, and since it is slang I have no idea whether my perception is entirely correct (ie I doubt it is in a real dictionary).

Obviously, I will now generally avoid the word (just as I generally avoid niggardly). Better safe than sorry!

Although "niggardly" comes from a completely different root- the words aren't related at all. I thought that whole flack was soooo annoying. But, whatever. Language will evolve, and I guess English is not the poorer for some words disappearing.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

OK, but does "cocky" have anything to do with a penis? Just curious. I never thought of it that way, and it seems odd that someone may.

There's a good question-- I always assumed it did, but I guess maybe someone could associate it with acting like a rooster? Strutting around crowing? I don't think "cock of the walk" has anything to do with the penis. Tell you what; I'll google right now and get back to you.

Etymology is fun, yes?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

OK. I have to know the story here. Why did he call you that?

I mean, I have been called a n***** a lot, but that has more do with what music I like, who I hung out with, etc.

Oh, what a story-- well, I got on the subway, opened a book, and on comes one of the, ahem, amateur preachers, shall I say, who like to shout at unsuspecting subway riders of Jesus's love, colored by their own political and social opinions. And the damn train was running local, and I had a long way to ride. So, this man starts shouting about slavery, and police brutality, and racism against blacks, lacing his speech with lots of uses of the n-word. He then moves on to shouting about Jesus. And then moves on to homosexuality, and the things coming out of his mouth are just hateful. I mean, awful. And a young man stands up and confronts him about the things he's saying, pointing out that he's saying the same thing about homosexuals that he was just accusing the NYPD of saying about blacks. And the amateur preacher starts shouting how it's not him saying these hateful things, it's Jesus and it's the truth because it's in the Bible. And the young man gives up and leaves the train. And the "preacher" keeps shouting about how it's not him, it's what's in the Bible. And then I start laughing and I can't stop. I want to, but I can't. It's like a little demon is inside me and I keep laughing and laughing. And so the "preacher" starts directing his rant at me, and the more I laugh the more he rants. Finally, the subway pulls into my stop, and as I exit, I have to walk right by the "preacher" and because I'm so angry at the crummy things he's been saying, I say, "Get a job." And he gets mad and says, "I'm working on it; I'm working on it. But this is truth, it's in the Bible..." and keeps yammering but now I'm off the train and on the platform so he (I assume; I dind't look back) holds the door open and continues to yell after me and finally shouts out, "You white, red-haired n*****!" And then, I assume, finally stopped holding the doors and climbed back into the train and continued haranging the people riding it, probably with something about how Jesus hates red-haired people. You know, Judas and all that.

As I said, I applaud his effort to make it a racially neutral epithet, but, it being so far out of my realm of experience, all I could think was, "For REAL? REALLY? That's really what you meant to call me? For REAL? Huh."

But of course, had it degenerated into a fistfight, I imagine he would have kicked my ass.

I don't hate all the amateur preachers on the subway. I liked the one who, in the middle of yammering about Jesus and salvation and whatever, loudly proclaimed, "Human beings has gots to have sex!" Amen, brother!

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oh, what a story-- well, I got on the subway, opened a book, and on comes one of the, ahem, amateur preachers, shall I say, who like to shout at unsuspecting subway riders of Jesus's love, colored by their own political and social opinions. And the damn train was running local, and I had a long way to ride. So, this man starts shouting about slavery, and police brutality, and racism against blacks, lacing his speech with lots of uses of the n-word. He then moves on to shouting about Jesus. And then moves on to homosexuality, and the things coming out of his mouth are just hateful. I mean, awful. And a young man stands up and confronts him about the things he's saying, pointing out that he's saying the same thing about homosexuals that he was just accusing the NYPD of saying about blacks. And the amateur preacher starts shouting how it's not him saying these hateful things, it's Jesus and it's the truth because it's in the Bible. And the young man gives up and leaves the train. And the "preacher" keeps shouting about how it's not him, it's what's in the Bible. And then I start laughing and I can't stop. I want to, but I can't. It's like a little demon is inside me and I keep laughing and laughing. And so the "preacher" starts directing his rant at me, and the more I laugh the more he rants. Finally, the subway pulls into my stop, and as I exit, I have to walk right by the "preacher" and because I'm so angry at the crummy things he's been saying, I say, "Get a job." And he gets mad and says, "I'm working on it; I'm working on it. But this is truth, it's in the Bible..." and keeps yammering but now I'm off the train and on the platform so he (I assume; I dind't look back) holds the door open and continues to yell after me and finally shouts out, "You white, red-haired n*****!" And then, I assume, finally stopped holding the doors and climbed back into the train and continued haranging the people riding it, probably with something about how Jesus hates red-haired people. You know, Judas and all that.

As I said, I applaud his effort to make it a racially neutral epithet, but, it being so far out of my realm of experience, all I could think was, "For REAL? REALLY? That's really what you meant to call me? For REAL? Huh."

But of course, had it degenerated into a fistfight, I imagine he would have kicked my ass.

I don't hate all the amateur preachers on the subway. I liked the one who, in the middle of yammering about Jesus and salvation and whatever, loudly proclaimed, "Human beings has gots to have sex!" Amen, brother!

LOL. I love NY. What a town. If you have a sense of humor and like culture, its the place to be.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oh, what a story-- well, I got on the subway, opened a book, and on comes one of the, ahem, amateur preachers, shall I say, who like to shout at unsuspecting subway riders of Jesus's love, colored by their own political and social opinions. And the damn train was running local, and I had a long way to ride. So, this man starts shouting about slavery, and police brutality, and racism against blacks, lacing his speech with lots of uses of the n-word. He then moves on to shouting about Jesus. And then moves on to homosexuality, and the things coming out of his mouth are just hateful. I mean, awful. And a young man stands up and confronts him about the things he's saying, pointing out that he's saying the same thing about homosexuals that he was just accusing the NYPD of saying about blacks. And the amateur preacher starts shouting how it's not him saying these hateful things, it's Jesus and it's the truth because it's in the Bible. And the young man gives up and leaves the train. And the "preacher" keeps shouting about how it's not him, it's what's in the Bible. And then I start laughing and I can't stop. I want to, but I can't. It's like a little demon is inside me and I keep laughing and laughing. And so the "preacher" starts directing his rant at me, and the more I laugh the more he rants. Finally, the subway pulls into my stop, and as I exit, I have to walk right by the "preacher" and because I'm so angry at the crummy things he's been saying, I say, "Get a job." And he gets mad and says, "I'm working on it; I'm working on it. But this is truth, it's in the Bible..." and keeps yammering but now I'm off the train and on the platform so he (I assume; I dind't look back) holds the door open and continues to yell after me and finally shouts out, "You white, red-haired n*****!" And then, I assume, finally stopped holding the doors and climbed back into the train and continued haranging the people riding it, probably with something about how Jesus hates red-haired people. You know, Judas and all that.

As I said, I applaud his effort to make it a racially neutral epithet, but, it being so far out of my realm of experience, all I could think was, "For REAL? REALLY? That's really what you meant to call me? For REAL? Huh."

But of course, had it degenerated into a fistfight, I imagine he would have kicked my ass.

I don't hate all the amateur preachers on the subway. I liked the one who, in the middle of yammering about Jesus and salvation and whatever, loudly proclaimed, "Human beings has gots to have sex!" Amen, brother!

I'm sorry,GR, the amatuers screw up the message as bad as the pros do...sometimes.