[Dace]

Originally Posted by horn

given that no one lists scientific studies when having everyday face to face discussions, even when they may involve making such outlandish scientific claims as "people need oxygen to breathe", where exactly do you have these discussions dace?

ah. ah, yes. yes it looks like we missed those.
maybe if you had tried to make a post that added to the discussion you would realise why. it's because the discussion moved onto not how to tackle the problem, but why it was a problem in the first place.
it was probably something easy to miss given that you appear to have ignored the posts in the thread (because they didn't have enough studies listed?) and just reeled off a list of tabloid sub headings as a framework for someone else to make a point about something we aren't discussing. next time you try to critique my posts, try actually replying to them. hopefully then it will be more apparent whther or not what you (nearly) have to say is relevent or not.


hey maybe the reason these statements might come across to you as "uneducated" is because it's concerning something you know very little about?


YEAH!!
the thing is, dickhead, is that the kind of "scientific evidence" we're talking about here isn't the kind of scientific evidence that has a clear break from opinion, or interpretation. so much so that the reason why it's so hard to come by studies concerning things like "atheism and alcoholism" is probably because any kind of "scientific" conclusions are going to be a bit of a joke.

there are studys that BACK THAT ****ER UP in relation to what i said about dualism and human perception/value. but if no one's questioning what i'm stating then what's the point in digging them up? (you dribbling "u dnt understand the words ur using. trust me ok i've been aruond a bit, can pm if needed" doesn't count)
there were some points i made that weren't supported by either general relativity or quantum theory though, like my experience with what the media write. yet i thought they were still correct and still worth making. i too sometimes disagree with what some people think about the media. only the other day i heard someone call it "too liberal". luckily i can now comfort myself in the knowledge that their opinions aren't worth listening too because they didn't back that ****er up with scientific studys



yeah. maybe i could roll up into the next thread i feel like "arguing properly" in and make some dire attempt at a..... um.... burn? then when told i'm not adding much i could just go all out. i mean i wouldn't actually try and reply to the posts i need to reply to. i'd just say things like "this discussion is dumb and unscientific. here is a list of the aspects of discussion i think should be covered because they have empirically quantifiable "scientific" answers. can't find any studys atm so i won't be arguing for or against them, but if you want to move forward this is def the way to go. ok cya", then i'd leave until the next time i decided to drop my covert but undoubtably weighty intellectual bombs on some unsuspecting poster. maybe with a few funnys too.



while i appreciate the scientific approach dace, i can't help but think you're an un interesting, unclever, unfunny, unkind wanker who is in no way better than me.

All that discussion with peers tends to do is homogenise views and opinions. That discussion can take place in the real world or online. In either case unless you have the ability to "back it up" the conversation is essentially worthless (from an intellectual point of view). All that you are doing is re-inforcing the group beliefs / stereotypes. If you are genuinely interested in a specific subject i would suggest reading widely on the topic (and tabloid media doesn't "count" ... due to their inherent biases and poor reporting practices). Getting poorly informed information from peers is a bad, bad way to go. If you want to debate a subject then you do need to provide references. If you want to continue back-slapping then, sure, carry on having pointless, wanky self-indulgent conversations.

Personally, on the occassions i do have "serious discussion" with friends down at the pub, or wherever, then i do reference my material as best as i can. "I read such and such an article at such and such a time" or "The IPCC has recently said X ... go and read the report". Obviously i dont carry a list of the articles with me on the off chance i start talking about it. You don't have that excuse online. Online you have a wealth of information available. There are also no time pressures. This means you can take the time required to prepare a proper response.

Also, all the points i raised were, contrary to your opinion, "why alcoholism is a problem". I'm unsure why you seem unable to comprehend that. I'd also question whether the topics i raised have ever been tabloid sub-headings. Ever. It has been my experience that tabloids tend to go for the highly emotive angle. In this case something along the lines of "Cop tries to tell US what's good for us (and by jove what right does he have to do that if he can't even round up all those blacks who are shooting people and shooting up)".

I would also like to point out that you appear to have very little clue about the scientific method. Have you had scientific training at a high level? I ask that not as a burn but genuinely. You say that any links found between atheism and alcoholism will be nothing more than a joke. I would argue that positive mental health comes from being "part of the group". Now that group can come from your family, your school, your job or your local "Church". The routes of investigation i suggested included all of those. Now if you have a large enough sample population you CAN infer the impact of atheism on alcoholism. At the most basic level if you have 2000 people who come from the exact same family background (size, social level etc) who went to similar standards of school and who all work in similar jobs but half go to church and half dont and 30% of those half who dont end up alcoholics then, if the stats says "yes", you can say "Atheism is linked to alcoholism". Proper scientific research IS free from opinion. I just don't understand how you can think otherwise. (Back to burn) More than anything it is your belief that proper science can be manipulated that makes me think you're a moron (and by proper science i mean peer reviewed, journal published reports. I'm not talking about the soundbites you get from politicians about the data. THAT can, and mostly is, spin.).

Now horn i have not really replied to specific posts in this thread because it is the thread in general, or rather the standard of debate within it, that i'm arguing against. I've targetted you, and your posts, specifically because you are the most ignorant person here who thinks he actually has a clue. You don't have a clue. I really desperately want you to realise this. Now the likes of Nod / Dante / T&F i've said nothing to or about them because i am confident that they know what's what. The impression i get is that when they talk here, even on "intellectual matters' it's some sort of pub conversation. They're just exhanging ideas. I also have confidence that they wouldn't blindly just believe anything somebody told them. They'd go and research the stuff themself. You though, you've got a MASSIVE hardon for this shit. STOP IT! Or, if as i've said already, you stay please get a clue and argue correctly.

So in conclusion horn either;
- Stay but stop arguing so heatedly
- Stay, continue to argue heatedly but argue in a "proper" fashion
- **** off