Lord Antares

Oh, boy, my first warning. I just want to point out, it's very much allowed to make slurs against conservatives here. I've seen it done by mods (not naming names). I've seen those insulting posts by mods be upvoted. I've seen Trump supporters be equated to idiots, dimwits, assholes etc. I have personally not seen any action against that. While I steer clear of those discussions, I would encourage you and the rest of the mods/admins to treat both sides equally. I see Raider got downvoted for simply pointing out the double standards, which proves my point. So, slurs and hate speech are allowed, as long they are against the same group of people the mods hate.

As you may have already gathered, the majority of ultra liberals are mentally retarded.

And they don't. Male fighters don't fight with female fighters. Pretty much every sport will have separated sex groups. You're not saying anything new. Anyone reasonable will scould that sort of ''transgender'' exploit.

That case has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with the retarded ''transgender'' policies. Blame on the proggressively ''proggressive'' society. I'm glad I don't live in a ''first world'' country.

Today I learned that drones are being used to plant trees, lots of them. Apparently, 100 000 plants are planted daily just by drones. http://mymodernmet.com/biocarbon-engineering-drone-reforestation/

All I see is a bunch of talk with no evidence. She is making stuff up as she goes along to fit her narrative. Of course, I could be wrong, but she would need to convince me. It's like if I recognized that men's clothes have less colour and then I inferred that this must be because women want to limit men in their choice. They want men to have less freedom over their clothing. Exactly the same thing. I just make it fit my narrative. I know you are. Those words are implied.

You are half right. I skimmed through everything and this contains no evidence and no concrete case. Certainly not enough to make any conclusion. Sounds like a shitty political agenda. But as long as it serves to take down the evil male pig, right?

This sounds like utter bollocks.

Still not as terrifying as the gejigeji...

What? Since when do Europeans not refrigerate eggs? I've never seen an egg not being refrigerated. I cannot speak for all European countries, though.

I came to this conclusion and was going to make a thread on it months ago but I forgot about it. I guess they beat me to it then.

Yes, you're starting to get it. At least you are making sense with this post. But what does any of this do? How does it benefit anything for the human race? What can you apply this knowledge to? Provided that it's correct in the first place. You cannot make anything that science does with this knowledge. Try to apply any philosophical reasoning to actually make any kind of output. You won't be able to. This is why I personally dislike philosophy. It's just argumentation. The whole discipline is based on talking about things you would talk about in some conversations anyway. And the issue is that no objective truth can be agreed upon from those conversations. So essentially, you have nothing of use. Good points, Strange, +1

No it doesn't. It's the opposite of that. It tries to reach logical conclusions without quantifiable results or evidence. That is done by science. If you want to make something that works, if you want to figure out variables for devices, if you want to calculate energy consumption for economy, if you want to synthesize materials etc. you use science, because philosophy provides none of that. It delves more into why those things are happening and what they mean. As it requires no mathematics, you cannot make any output out of philosophy. Also, the ''correctness'' (which is a loose term anyway) of philosophy is often arguable, something which is antithetical to science. In science, agreement with experiment and evidence is a requirement if you want to know what you're doing.

It most definitely isn't. Science is the best way we can describe reality to a woking extent whereas philosophy doesn't offer factual and experimental data. I don't know why you think science can't step foward because it relies on data. With new data, new science is possible. Also, with new theories and models, new data can be acquired which can then be used. Philosophy is never correct nor incorrect. How could we rely solely on philosophy if it can't be used in the material world? You build new technology and equipment with science, not philosophy. No. It doesn't work on accuracy. It's like asking if art was as accurate as science. Art and philosophy don't rely on correctness. No, philosophy isn't an advanced science. It isn't science at all. Let's put it like this, to get a bette picture: Science shows how stuff works and philosophy seeks to describe why it works. It is an overgeneralization, but it's true a lot of the time.

Whether there is a better way to describe it or not is irrelevant if what you are trying to say doesn't mean anything to physics.

It can't link anything to anything without mathematics and a model. But there is nothing to link anyway. You call it complexity, someone else calls it physical forces. In essence, you are just introducing a word (complexity) into it. What other link to sciences do you see here?

Honestly, you didn't say anything here, pretty much. It reads more like a rant, than a hypothesis. No offense, but there is no substance here. No propositions or mathematics, it's just a ''view'' on things. Hence, I agree with imatfaal that it's philosophy, rather than science. Do you think these thoughts have some kind of relevance to physics? If so, how?

There it is. Just 4 posts above your previous post. Just scroll up.

I noticed that you are actually the same person as in post #3163, so you already asked this and got positive and reinforcing answers

In other words, questions about what you don't know are always welcome here, however simple and basic. Claims and theories that you know something that others don't without proper evidence is what's uncwelcome. You can ask about anything, the site exists to educate people with lesser knowledge. You will do fine.

Two chemists walk into a bar, The first one says ''I'll have H2o.'' The second one says ''I'll have H2o too.'' The second chemist dies.

Today I learned that there is a wikipedia article about wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Today I learned that time dilation is a lie

That makes no sense. Scientific articles are supposed to be there because their judgement is superior to yours. So saying that you can pick apart a scientific article and decide what's good and what's bad doesn't really hold water. If it was that easy to decide what is correct and what is incorrect in a scientific article, what would be the point of citing one in the first place? And how did you decide that the first part is correct and the second is incorrect? Because you have a feeling it might be so?

Of course you reject it because you smoke weed. You want to believe only the positive indications about weed smoking. Why do you cite an article as basis for your statement that it may hardwire people to adapt against negative peer influence, but reject something else that shows a negative effect in the same article?