Gun Control

Yes, some of them actually do good research, here let us take a look at the branches:
Yeah you're right, they never produced anything viable or interesting ... But one could easily get that idea, if he concentrates on nothing else but the fringes and lunatics out there - which actually exist in ALL departments of science really.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yes, some of them actually do good research, here let us take a look at the branches:
Yeah you're right, they never produced anything viable or interesting ...
Click to expand...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...al-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/

Some branches are better than others, but by and large they don't deserve the label "science" because of how they tend to approach things. (Economics is hilariously terrible at predictive ability, as that article mentions)

The value of something as a science hinges in no small part on its ability to make effective predictions about something that can be observed, be it an object or a behavior or what have you. Not only do the social sciences constantly get tripped up on this, they often do things like stand the scientific method on its head for political expediency.

The social sciences have POTENTIAL to become more than an awkward bridge between the humanities and the hard sciences, but it's unlikely they'll ever do so as long as the heads of sociology departments and so on insist on using the field as a way to perpetuate their personal politics.

Like, I've cracked some of the books for sociology classes and so on and they're a whole lot of conjecture and rubbish, frankly. Economics is notoriously bad (read Debunking Economics for a good explanation of why). Don't get me started on the "gender studies" classes, which are so much codswallop. These kinds of books are articles of faith to the New Left, not just textbooks, and more's the pity.
 
Last edited:
Sure I never denied that some branches are probably easier to varify than others, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a science or that everything that's researched here is absolute bullshit or that it doesn't warrant some research. Who am I to tell an economist who no clue studied british trade policies for years, that he's not a scientist? Or that his research is completely meaningless. Not every branch of science has also the same target, sometimes studying the effects of policies like Trickle-Down-Economy or Adam Smith's laissez-faire economy can give you very valuable informations, or is History a useless topic, because it can't predict the future? Are you the authority here to decide that historians are not 'scientists' beacuse their findings aren't as rigorous like math equations? Besides, even if we go in to the natural science like Physics or Biology there are still plenty of open topics that aren't as easily solvable as people think and require a lot of extensive research to be answered. Particuliarly in the realm of physics, some researchers are entering territory that's rather phyilosopical than clearly varifable as they are scraching on the very surface of reality to speak so.

So don't be so quick in your opinion of what branch now is scientific and what isn't.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Sure I never denied that some branches are probably easier to varify than others, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a science or that everything that's researched here is absolute bullshit or that it doesn't warrant some research. Who am I to tell an economist who no clue studied british trade policies for years, that he's not a scientist?
Click to expand...

If he's not using the scientific method correctly and is not creating experiment results that can be effectively replicated, he's a damn poor scientist at best.

Crni Vuk said:
Not every branch of science has also the same target, sometimes studying the effects of policies like Trickle-Down-Economy or Adam Smith's laissez-faire economy can give you very valuable informations, or is History a useless topic, because it can't predict the future?
Click to expand...

History generally doesn't pretend to be a science with predictive power as such. History is there to teach what happened and it's up to other branches of learning to figure out where to go from there. It's not history's job to predict things - and when it DOES start predicting things it usually means people weren't paying attention to history very well.
 
Last edited:
You're way to much generalizing, it's simply a fact that you have many situations in science where you can't quantify a case, this is often the case in psychology or medicine, where you can only observe the effects without a chance to perform randomized experiments due to ethical and practical reasons. Just because we can't predict every single child and it's behaviour it's still easy to make a prediction with some probability based on observation and experience, and despite the vast disagreement between psychologists and physicians, there is still no debate about the fundamental principles in their empirical disciplines. For example when you continiously beat, neglect and misstreat your child exposing it constantly to stress and trauma beeing a negative impact on the childs development and behaviour or the possible health related issues of extreme obesity since childhood.

I quote:

But the headline-grabbing differences between the findings of these Nobel laureates are less significant than the profound agreement in their scientific approach to economic questions, which is characterized by formulating and testing precise hypotheses. I’m troubled by the sense among skeptics that disagreements about the answers to certain questions suggest that economics is a confused discipline, a fake science whose findings cannot be a useful basis for making policy decisions.


That view is unfair and uninformed. It makes demands on economics that are not made of other empirical disciplines, like medicine, and it ignores an emerging body of work, building on the scientific approach of last week’s winners, that is transforming economics into a field firmly grounded in fact.

(...)it is simplistic and irresponsible to use disagreements among economists on a handful of difficult questions as an excuse to ignore the field’s many topics of consensus and its ability to inform policy decisions on the basis of evidence instead of ideology.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/yes-economics-is-a-science.html
 
Last edited:
Pariah Dog said:
How very dare us peons get uppity. British thinking right here.
Click to expand...
Get uppity all you want, there's just no reason to get uppity at people who are literally not in power. Also, even if they were in power, you don't live under a monarchy, killing certain families doesn't help when the family in power changes every 5-10 years.
 
Hassknecht said:
"Liberal" has a completely different meaning now in the US, basically the opposite of what it is everywhere else.
But it's good that the word exists, because it's good to have some variety in your rants about why shit's shit. Always blaming the Communists/Marxists is boring, and blaming the Jews is out of style at the moment. I mean, it's all the same in the end, but at least the word salad gets a bit of a different dressing.
Click to expand...
Wow! Get a load of this guy. Trying so hard to imply it's anti-semetic to not love liberalism. What, was it not enough that you also insult us and claim we "Just don't know" what we're talking about?

What's the matter? Why are you calling us anti-semetic? I thought you called us anti-gay now. What did you call us thoughtcriminals, again? Was it racist, sexist, homophobic, incel, virgin, or literal hitler?

Liberalism is such a failure, and it's used the "Nazi" label on its critics for so long, it's having to scramble desperately for a new word sane people will be afraid of.

Honestly, I miss when you called us incelvirgins. It was funny to know you think Nazis, Right-Wingers, "Shitlord Cishet Scum" Virgins, and "Fucking white males" are all equally bad things to be called.

Look at this guy! Here he goes, dismissing everyone's criticisms of "Gun Control", other parts of liberal dogma, and liberalism itself with this smug "Ahuhuhu, people say da same things a lot coz day be nazis!" nonsense.

How this person got his current role, I'll never understand.

Maybe you should make like the rest of the libtard party, and #WalkAway.

EDIT: Though if you want a less "Aggressive" response from me, I can give you one. Even though you want me dead and my fundamental human rights restricted/removed based on the colour of my skin, like all liberals. And even though you keep insulting me, ignoring the points I make, and "Implying" that I am okay with the genocide of millions and would be okay with the genocide of millions more. Honestly, what do you think I am, a Communist? I don't want the genocide of Jews. I don't want the genocide of non-white people. I don't even want the genocide of people who want the genocide of white people, I just want those people to grow up and get a life and stop blaming their personal failings on white people.

Let's get this thread going in a more enjoyable direction for everyone involved with some funny political videos that explain the faults in faulty liberal dogma so simply, a kid could understand it!



 
Last edited:
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 said:
Wow! Get a load of this guy. Trying so hard to imply it's anti-semetic to not love liberalism. What, was it not enough that you also insult us and claim we "Just don't know" what we're talking about?

What's the matter? Why are you calling us anti-semetic? I thought you called us anti-gay now. What did you call us thoughtcriminals, again? Was it racist, sexist, homophobic, incel, virgin, or literal hitler?

Liberalism is such a failure, and it's used the "Nazi" label on its critics for so long, it's having to scramble desperately for a new word sane people will be afraid of.

Honestly, I miss when you called us incelvirgins. It was funny to know you think Nazis, Right-Wingers, "Shitlord Cishet Scum" Virgins, and "Fucking white males" are all equally bad things to be called.

Look at this guy! Here he goes, dismissing everyone's criticisms of "Gun Control", other parts of liberal dogma, and liberalism itself with this smug "Ahuhuhu, people say da same things a lot coz day be nazis!" nonsense.

How this person got his current role, I'll never understand.

Maybe you should make like the rest of the libtard party, and #WalkAway.
Click to expand...
You need to remember that I'm against gun control, and not a liberal in the american sense at all, but more in the classic sense (what you'd call a libertarian).
You didn't get my post at all. I didn't imply that to "not love liberalism" means to be anti semitic or whatever, just that this whole "OMFG LURRALS ARE RUINING EVERYTHING" is the same retarded "us vs. them" IdPol bollocks that the Left does. Seriously. It's just trying to find a scapegoat for things going wrong, and it's easier to just use a label and a perceived group than actually thinking about solutions.
The fact that "liberalism", despite the origin of the word and the meaning it has in the rest of the world, is now used interchangebly with "authoritarian left" is just a symptom of that. It's just a continuation of the scapegoat of the political Right, which, yes, also included the Jews. It's the same on the Left, where "white cishet scum" is the new "reactionary" and "bourgeousie" and "monarchist". It's all just convenient in- and out-grouping to avoid having to think too much.
You're a walking meme at this point.
 
Jumping jesus on a pogostick. How do you Germans say it? Fremdschämen, right? Getting a lot of that tonight.
Jogre said:
Get uppity all you want, there's just no reason to get uppity at people who are literally not in power. Also, even if they were in power, you don't live under a monarchy, killing certain families doesn't help when the family in power changes every 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
I think it's helpful when governments are afraid of their people, as a rule. That constant fear that if they try something really harebrained we'll be all over them like ugly on an ape.
 
Hassknecht said:
You didn't get my post at all. I didn't imply that to "not love liberalism" means to be anti semitic or whatever, just that this whole "OMFG LURRALS ARE RUINING EVERYTHING" is the same retarded "us vs. them" IdPol bollocks that the Left does.
Click to expand...
You were quite clearly implying that with the "Well at least they stopped saying jew" crap, but let's focus on that second part.

You know, the false equivalency.

Modern Liberals hate white people. Yeah, Classical Liberalism was a good thing many centuries ago, before the ideology was morphed into an anti-white hate group.

Modern Liberals hate white people and want their rights restricted. This includes gun rights. You know, the arm to defend themselves in the event of an armed invasion, mugging, or race riot that comes about as a result of some dindu getting shot.

Modern Liberals hate me and blame everything they see as wrong with the world on "The Alt Right", which is their insulting name for everyone to the right of their far-left hate group. This includes libertarians like myself.

Liberals rage about "The Alt Right Nazis" they want to physically attack because they're idiots who can't win debates because they're wrong. Their ideology is built on faulty beliefs on morality and oppression and how these things work. They are CONVINCED that mexicans are being rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps to be gassed, RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN!, and they are CONVINCED that gay, bisexual, genderfluid, genderqueer, panfluid, dragonkin, dragonborn, plantkin, multigender, demigirl, and transgender people are next.

I can rationally explain why liberals are wrong politically, and wrong to physically harm those they disagree with. I can rationally explain why it's wrong for liberals to repeatedly attempt to harm me and restrict my basic human rights.

Liberals: WE MUST PUNCH EVERYONE WE DISAGREE WITH! THE NAZIS RULE THE WHITE HOUSE AND ARE COMING FOR YOU! YOU DON'T NEED A GUN AND YOU MUST PAY FOR MY BIRTH CONTROL! WE MUST KEEP THE WHITE MALES DOWN BEFORE THEY RISE UP! THINK OF THE CHILDREN, WHO DRUMPF ARE GASSING!
Me: Wow, you guys are fucking moro- I mean, you people have fundamental misunderstandings about what's going on in the world. Let's have a reasoned debate over this.
Liberals: You hate jews and if you don't love liberalism, you don't know what it is.
Me: Wow, get a load of these jackasses.

Do you see the difference?
 
I give you that, you have almost the same entertainment value like Alex Jones.

tumblr_me92vexwKo1rqo45ao1_400.gif
 
Everyone loves a good REEEEEsponse from a guy with a My Little Pony avatar. It adds all the gravitas.
I wanted to write a whole long response detailing the actual political directions in the general Left, but honestly I'm kinda tired and I don't particularly care. But I do like how my love for playing the Devil's Advocate now brought me to try and defend the Ctrl-Left (vulgo: "Lurrals") which I usually incessantly criticize and hate with a passion.
 
Hassknecht said:
Everyone loves a good REEEEEsponse from a guy with a My Little Pony avatar. It adds all the gravitas.
I wanted to write a whole long response detailing the actual political directions in the general Left, but honestly I'm kinda tired and I don't particularly care. But I do like how my love for playing the Devil's Advocate now brought me to try and defend the Ctrl-Left (vulgo: "Lurrals") which I usually incessantly criticize and hate with a passion.
Click to expand...
*click*
Yep, that one's going in my liberals compilation.

Crni Vuk said:
I give you that, you have almost the same entertainment value like Alex Jones.
Click to expand...
The comedian who rants about gay frogs and sells boner pills?

Mind if I ask you something? Why are y'all so pathologically obsessed with the continued existences of Alex Jones and Fox News? The latter insulted called My Little Pony "too sexy" and is owned by the same people who own CNN, and the former is still a comedian, even now, and always was.

Is it a sort of projection? Do you think it becomes okay for your side to own over 90% of all media outlets on the planet, and all television-based news media, and for your side to blatantly lie using that media, if the world still contains media you don't like? Do you think that time CNN got caught interviewing an "Angry racist Trump supporter" who turned out to be their own cameraman is okay, because one time, Alex Jones ranted about gay frogs?

I really want you to explain why you're so obsessed over these two things, and why y'all bring them up when you're afraid I'm going to post the Anti-Libtard Cheat Sheet.
 
Hassknecht said:
Everyone loves a good REEEEEsponse from a guy with a My Little Pony avatar. It adds all the gravitas.
I wanted to write a whole long response detailing the actual political directions in the general Left, but honestly I'm kinda tired and I don't particularly care. But I do like how my love for playing the Devil's Advocate now brought me to try and defend the Ctrl-Left (vulgo: "Lurrals") which I usually incessantly criticize and hate with a passion.
Click to expand...

That's because he's playing pigeon chess. You have no hope of scoring a victory here Hass, just leave him be. Maybe he will eventually dissapear.
 
Crni Vuk said:
That's because he's playing pidgeon chess. You have no hope of scoring a victory here Hass, just leave him be. Maybe he will eventually dissapear.
Click to expand...
This is a thread about the liberal quest to take my guns away.

You're saying this in a thread that's living proof that you are irrationally malicious.

Putting that aside, why are you so obsessed with Alex Jones?
 
I think those Brownies don't even like guns. I mean isn't that cartoon supposed to be about friendship, love and all that leftist stuff?
 
Pariah Dog said:
The fuck is it with cartoon horses. Every fucking time I've seen one something like this has happened.
Click to expand...
This is really supposed to be a thread on gun control, not something that only started to bother you when the left ran out of every last talking point in existence. Hence why they're settling on "Projection".

I wonder if "Stop thoughtcriming or we'll ban you for seeming almost as aggressive as us, you alt-right cishet scum!" is next.

Crni Vuk said:
I think those Brownies don't even like guns. I mean isn't that cartoon supposed to be about friendship, love and all that leftist stuff?
Click to expand...
There's literally an episode where Rainbow Laser-firing magical items called the Elements of Harmony are used to blow a villain up.

Even in cartoons about horses, good people use deadly weapons to protect themselves and save lives.

I might have a pony avatar, but it seems you're the one with a mouth full of straw.

because you keep strawmanning me out of desperation lol
 
Eh, I take it back you're not entertaining anymore ... it's more funn reading your posts where you just rant and rant and continue to blame the left, liberals, the moon or what ever for your paranoid problems.
 
>tfw classical liberal
>tfw the word "liberal" means something entirely different now
>tfw not sure what to call self anymore for short

Also Lauren Faust is a fucking feminist who regrets making really good episodes of her cartoons because in retrospect they offend her dogmatic feminist hangers-on, and the pastel pony show was never that damn clever (but it was a gigantic fucking sperg magnet for some reason)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top