User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. ...
  11. 593
  12. 594
  13. 595
  14. 596

Posts by Obbe

  1. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Gta pretty good too but new one is coming 2025 so enjoy that one while it lasts...
  2. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  3. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Great comeback kid, stay in school

  4. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson How is that related to the conversation we were having Obbe? when you run out of steam you attempt to steer the debate in another direction..you've done it several times in this thread

  5. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson "Some companies paid doctors to claim their cigarettes were somehow “healthier” than the competition [4]. This history exposes how disingenuous marketing and fake research can mislead the public for decades. "

    So you believe Exxon paid their scientists to make up claims and predictions (which have now become our reality) against their own financial interests?

    You are a clown.
  6. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson … they only get funded if they "agree" with the premise…that makes them compromised from the very beginning.

    This is demonstratably not true. See this article:

    Originally posted by Obbe In case you forgot:

    They KNEW: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

    Do you believe they reached the conclusions Exxon wanted them to reach?
  7. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Move to a more developed country as an "international student", they seem to get all the jobs.
  8. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    How the climate changes follows "rules" and "laws" exactly like gravity or thermodynamics do. A climate scientists report on what he discovered by studying things is no different that a physicists report on what he discovered by studying things.
  9. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson I and others have already explained how scientists rely on funding for their research and they only get funded if they "agree" with the premise…that makes them compromised from the very beginning.

    Yet the same process is used to determine "scientific laws", does that mean all scientific laws are compromised for the exact same reasons?
  10. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Maybe…so please explain how a bullshit paid for document created by biased people is relevant to universal and scientific laws independent of human involvement

    First please explain how that document is bullshit and not actually a representation of how humans use the scientific process to reach conclusions about their reality.
  11. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Not relevant to the discussion Obbe..but nice try.

    It is absolutely relevant, maybe just over your head.
  12. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson The statement "there is nothing stopping "scientific laws" from changing" is the problem here, you have absolutely nothing to support that statement…it's pure speculation. Speculation doesn't "trump" scientific law.

    If you are looking for a statement with lots of scientific support, check this one out:

    Originally posted by Obbe "It is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet."
  13. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson ^ this is pure speculation and not a "scientific law"…it's a concept based on …nothing

    I never said it was a scientific law. I said there is nothing stopping "scientific laws" from changing in the future, and that they could have been different in the past as well. That statement is absolutely true.
  14. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Again no…laws are not just concepts created by people (people simply created the way to communicate those laws in understandable terms)…scietnific laws are well defined behaviors that can be replicated and demonstrated over and over and over…again orbital laws were in place long before life on Earth existed…life on Earth wouldn't be here without them!

    Again there is nothing stopping those "laws" from changing in the future; and they could have been different in the past as well!
  15. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson No they are not just "concepts" they are laws that can be demonstrated over and over again…hence it is a "scientific law".

    For now.

    There is absolutely nothing stopping those "laws" from changing in the future... because they aren't really laws, laws are just a concept created by people trying to understand what reality is. And reality just is what it is and there is nothing it is intending to be, should be, or needs to be.
  16. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Source?

    But again, science has "laws"…it doesn't need a consciousness for those laws to be in place and followed.

    Scientific laws are just concepts created by humans trying to understand reality.
  17. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Correct "nobody" is…the laws of science isn't a "body".

    "Science" is also not intending anything. Science doesn't care if the whole barrel goes rotten.
  18. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson …the apple doesn't "need" to be removed from the barrel…but if the intent is for life to thrive then it's in the interests of the "apples" that the bad one be removed.

    But nobody is intending that.
  19. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Obbe "It is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet."
  20. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson No…common senses does not = "deserving".

    Common sense dictates if the existence of 1 species means the death of 100 species it makes COMMON SENSE for that 1 species to be removed.

    The old "bad apple in the barrel" analogy….one bad apple can ruin/destroy the rest.

    "Deserving" doesn't come into it…common sense does.

    Again, there is no "need" to remove the bad apple from the barrel. Who cares if it destroys the rest? The world is the way it is, and there is no need for it to be any other way.
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. ...
  11. 593
  12. 594
  13. 595
  14. 596
Jump to Top