▲ 526 ▼ Turned red after finding out that (lemmy.world) submitted 2 months ago by Tolc@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml 297 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (33 children) Morals are not the same as material processes. Simply saying "evil" as a reason for something is not a scientific answer for the behavior of societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (24 children) there is no legitimate social sciences. Stemlords should be forced to study social sciences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (22 children) Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (21 children) Those are social sciences there isn't however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren't sciences and sociology isn't really a thing anymore, it's a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn't a science at all it's a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn't science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago (1 child) societal issues aren’t scientific Hahahahaha holy shit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (4 children) Why is social science not legitimate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (3 children) There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn't objectively testable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (2 children) Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (1 child) There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There's social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it's not a science.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (19 children) Morals are weightless and made up homie, for half of American history it was "wrong" to free a slave permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (17 children) So murder is fine What's fine mean? You're just using it as a standin for "good" or "acceptable" which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who? most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong What? Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide? You seem to think that "right and wrong" exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don't. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (16 children) Morals are weightless and made up homie They're not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn't imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) What's the total weight of morals right now, in Newtons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children) A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (11 children) This is a tautology, this is the same argument as "God is real because we live under religious law." Like....yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what's Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people? wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. We do not do this, all of Epstein's pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago (10 children) We don't live under religious law so that doesn't apply, cool try though. You literally described society ya genius. That doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (33 children) Morals are not the same as material processes. Simply saying "evil" as a reason for something is not a scientific answer for the behavior of societies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 33 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (24 children) there is no legitimate social sciences. Stemlords should be forced to study social sciences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (22 children) Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (21 children) Those are social sciences there isn't however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren't sciences and sociology isn't really a thing anymore, it's a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn't a science at all it's a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn't science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago (1 child) societal issues aren’t scientific Hahahahaha holy shit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (4 children) Why is social science not legitimate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (3 children) There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn't objectively testable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (2 children) Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (1 child) There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There's social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it's not a science.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (24 children) there is no legitimate social sciences. Stemlords should be forced to study social sciences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (22 children) Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (21 children) Those are social sciences there isn't however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren't sciences and sociology isn't really a thing anymore, it's a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn't a science at all it's a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn't science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago (1 child) societal issues aren’t scientific Hahahahaha holy shit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (4 children) Why is social science not legitimate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (3 children) There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn't objectively testable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (2 children) Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (1 child) There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There's social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it's not a science.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (24 children) there is no legitimate social sciences. Stemlords should be forced to study social sciences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (22 children) Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (21 children) Those are social sciences there isn't however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren't sciences and sociology isn't really a thing anymore, it's a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn't a science at all it's a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn't science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (22 children) Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (21 children) Those are social sciences there isn't however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren't sciences and sociology isn't really a thing anymore, it's a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn't a science at all it's a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn't science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago (22 children) Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (21 children) Those are social sciences there isn't however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren't sciences and sociology isn't really a thing anymore, it's a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn't a science at all it's a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn't science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (21 children) Those are social sciences there isn't however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren't sciences and sociology isn't really a thing anymore, it's a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn't a science at all it's a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn't science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent [–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children) Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. That's great but you said: "there is no legitimate social sciences." Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields. As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is: A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children) There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children) First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children) Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences. If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children) Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s 😆 permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children) Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh? Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children) Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is. Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children) Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation. Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building. I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?! You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children) It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud. That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply. It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities. So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children) It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply. But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said. It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities. I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged. Pot See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child) No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense. Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it. Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago I was very clearly responding to Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud. Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone. It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense. Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly. It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it. I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children) There is no natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children) Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children) That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science. It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go. Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best. You lost the argument up there. How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance. By jury generally. The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pleiades@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago (1 child) societal issues aren’t scientific Hahahahaha holy shit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (4 children) Why is social science not legitimate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (3 children) There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn't objectively testable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (2 children) Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (1 child) There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There's social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it's not a science.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (3 children) There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn't objectively testable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (2 children) Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (1 child) There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There's social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it's not a science.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (2 children) Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (1 child) There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There's social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it's not a science.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (1 child) There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There's social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it's not a science.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago You didn't answer my question. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (19 children) Morals are weightless and made up homie, for half of American history it was "wrong" to free a slave permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (17 children) So murder is fine What's fine mean? You're just using it as a standin for "good" or "acceptable" which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who? most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong What? Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide? You seem to think that "right and wrong" exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don't. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (16 children) Morals are weightless and made up homie They're not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn't imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) What's the total weight of morals right now, in Newtons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children) A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (11 children) This is a tautology, this is the same argument as "God is real because we live under religious law." Like....yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what's Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people? wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. We do not do this, all of Epstein's pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago (10 children) We don't live under religious law so that doesn't apply, cool try though. You literally described society ya genius. That doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (17 children) So murder is fine What's fine mean? You're just using it as a standin for "good" or "acceptable" which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who? most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong What? Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide? You seem to think that "right and wrong" exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don't. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (16 children) Morals are weightless and made up homie They're not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn't imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) What's the total weight of morals right now, in Newtons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children) A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (11 children) This is a tautology, this is the same argument as "God is real because we live under religious law." Like....yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what's Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people? wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. We do not do this, all of Epstein's pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago (10 children) We don't live under religious law so that doesn't apply, cool try though. You literally described society ya genius. That doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (17 children) So murder is fine What's fine mean? You're just using it as a standin for "good" or "acceptable" which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who? most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong What? Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide? You seem to think that "right and wrong" exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don't. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (16 children) Morals are weightless and made up homie They're not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn't imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) What's the total weight of morals right now, in Newtons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children) A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (11 children) This is a tautology, this is the same argument as "God is real because we live under religious law." Like....yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what's Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people? wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. We do not do this, all of Epstein's pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago (10 children) We don't live under religious law so that doesn't apply, cool try though. You literally described society ya genius. That doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (16 children) Morals are weightless and made up homie They're not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn't imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) What's the total weight of morals right now, in Newtons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children) A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (11 children) This is a tautology, this is the same argument as "God is real because we live under religious law." Like....yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what's Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people? wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. We do not do this, all of Epstein's pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago (10 children) We don't live under religious law so that doesn't apply, cool try though. You literally described society ya genius. That doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children) What's the total weight of morals right now, in Newtons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children) A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (2 children) A newton is a measure of force not weight. So how fast are they moving and in what direction. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child) Weight is a force. What did you think it was, and what did you think it was measured in? Also, ironic to complain about social sciences not being sciences while also failing at basic physics. Also, you are mixing up measures and units of measurement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago Pretending to be an arbiter of what is and isn't science and not knowing weight is a force measured in Newton's and mass is measured in grams is pretty funny. If they were doing a bit it would be gold. (If only)(One can dream). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (11 children) This is a tautology, this is the same argument as "God is real because we live under religious law." Like....yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what's Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people? wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless. We do not do this, all of Epstein's pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago (10 children) We don't live under religious law so that doesn't apply, cool try though. You literally described society ya genius. That doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 2 months ago (10 children) We don't live under religious law so that doesn't apply, cool try though. You literally described society ya genius. That doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (8 children) Oh right, you're that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (7 children) Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn't at all apply here and it isn't at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can't argue substance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (6 children) Very relevant actually considering how you act in this thread. That and your chauvinistic and imperialistic views are pretty horrid and does in fact make you a fascist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children) No it's character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can't do that bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (4 children) Attacking the argument requires you to make one permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (3 children) You should read bud. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children) Keep posting through it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Keep trolling and not adding anything of value. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago Why would I do anything else, when you behave as you do? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade permalink fedilink source parent
