So...I study on the ill effects of sugar in our diet, is automatically a lie because it does not address the level of fat in steak, or the positive effect on our metabolism?
You are very familiar with economics are you? Look at the literature. You are tremendously misinformed about the methodologies of economics (again going back to how science works) as well as popular theory.
It isn't common sense just because you say it is common sense
You think that gun access doesn't increase gun crimes. I disagree. In fact, I would say that it might be quite obvious when you look at the extremes that gun access allows for gun crime. After all, without guns, you can't have gun crime. But I understand it is much more complex than that. You don't. Instead you hold your egotistical self-fulfilling position that you are right and that is that. Well good luck with that- as far as I am concerned, no one that matters is so egotistical except for ideologues such as yourself when you are in numbers.
Last edited:
You don't understand science and are not trying to. I have nothing to say to you. Your "truth" is pure and utter belief- in regards to science it is conspiracy. You are the one who is being blinded by ideology, not me
It isn't common sense just because you say it is common sense
You call me egotistical but you are talking about "people that matter" that is the most hilarious bit of hypocrisy I have ever heard.
It isn't who when facts ate in my side.
take this fact for i instance. Switzerland is home of many gun owners, yet their current crime rate is much lower than the UK.
see it isn't ego to say that you are not correct. it is however for you to pretend your opinion is fact.
But it is common that people who suffer from a certain character flaw project it on to others.
Everybody matters myp but your ego stops you from seeing that.
And you always always always post an ad hominem argument when you know you are incorrect. You don't seem to even realize you have done so.
You don't understand science and are not trying to. I have nothing to say to you. Your "truth" is pure and utter belief- in regards to science it is conspiracy. You are the one who is being blinded by ideology, not me
This seems to be something you say to everybody you disagree with.
"your truth" that is absurd.
Learn to debate without questioning the other person. If it was as simple as the facts showing a statement wrong than just post the facts. You never ever seem capable of finding any fact whatsoever.
Claiming nobody understands science as you do states that you have a unique understanding of science. Further more you always through around this word science as though it proves you right. I really don't think you have any clue in the slightest of what science is.
Any time you carelessly say that someone doesn't understand science as clearly as you do please provide some support for such a statement.
He isn't really talking about science he is talking about biased and intellectually dishonest opinion for which he agrees with.
unless you have some letters after your name you don't matter according to his own words.
It isn't common sense just because you say it is common sense
I agree with what you say about guns and gun crimes but not with your rant at someone who disagrees with your opinion. Thats why I didnt 'thank' you
Its perfectly okay to disagree, I respect your ability to disagree with me and not mount an ad hominem defensive.
If that is the ONLY study you do then you will never know the truth.
If you study only the ILL effects of sugar how likely are you to discover all the good that sugar does? You will make all the mistakes that lead to biased conclusions before you begin your "study".
Thanks for making my point so well for me.
LOL, I have a Masters Degree but it is science based, leading to a wonderful career in engineering. Of course to some I do not know anything about science.
I am a senior engineering manager on a program worth more than a billion dollars. Somehow I manage without that level of scientific understanding others claim for themselves.
Unless of course...the study was intended to find the ill effects of sugars.
I am guessing you simply do not understand the way a study is designed to function, let alone the limitations inherent in all research....there is simply no possible way to incorporate all information into a single study, as no one has the time, energy, capability, or manpower to do so.
You call it bias....I call it the reality of science.
Lol, you naming names doesn't say anything and the fact that you name a few, including those "you have forgotten" is not conducive to what their work actually means. Your use of figures (attacking the person or building an argument based on the person) and talking points is the issue here, not the use of actual studies and data. Ironically all of the men you just mentioned (perhaps minus Marx and Engels, but I am not familiar enough with their work to say) would opt for the latter and not the former.
That is correlation. You can find such correlations on the other side too. This is part of the reason we need more studies- more people to look at it scientifically.
You are the one that does that, not me. Remember I am the one asking to see more data through studies- you are the one that has it figured out based on loose correlations like Switzerland. I also accept that your opinion on the 2nd amendment is your interpretation and opinion and that mine is mine- you reject my interpretation and insist you are right.
Maybe with you I have at times, but it is because of your ego. And to be fair, you've returned the favor plenty of times. At least I can admit it.
I think we need to look at out socially, science had nothing to do with it.
No, you do, this could go on for ever.
Yeah, that's very odd, asking for data, its obviously a social problem. I didn't interpret the second amendment I simply read and understood, because I speak English.
So its because of my ego that you have an ego? How pathetic.
What does "social" problem even mean? It is a policy issue that has costs and benefits- you can look at it scientifically. Considering you can even look at social issues scientifically, even if it is a "social" problem, you can look at it through science, depending on how you define that.
But either way, what is your proof for your position? You mentioned Switzerland. It is clearly correlation and exactly opposite correlations exist too. DO you have any further proof?
But either way, what is your proof for your position? You mentioned Switzerland. It is clearly correlation and exactly opposite correlations exist too. DO you have any further proof?
no again, its something you are in desperate lacking of, common sense. no follow me here, I know your arrogance states that I'd someone that doesn't have a phd can't have common sense, but put your bigotry aside for a minuet and follow the simplest logic.
If nations that have many guns and nations that have no guns show the same results the obviously guns aren't a variable that is simple third grade science.
You don't even understand the basic cause and effect correlation.
All I am saying is before we butcher our constitution we look at cultural issues.
And social means having to do with society, invest in a dictionary.
Similar threads
