Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 03:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah! Now there's a thing I did not say.

And I didn't claim that was a quote.

I wonder what the problem was, then?

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  What you DID say was this:

Quote:it only follows if one allows a distinction to be made between science and technology - which I don't, though you evidently do.

And yes, that is treating the two if they were one and the same.

I might draw your attention to a thing called context. As in, "[such] a distinction".

But clearly that's crazy talk.

If you're so pathetically desperate to find something to argue against, well, that's your prerogative.

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Looks like you wouldn't know a strawman if it bent you over.

Would I recognize an ad hominem?
Wink

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:Fixed that for you.

ped·ant
ˈpednt/
noun
noun: pedant; plural noun: pedants

[1] a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules [2] or with displaying academic learning.


1) an actual pedant would be concerned with having definitions correct, quite unlike you.

2) Yeah that sounds about right, poseur.

Shit, son, you got me!

Are you even trying?

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:It didn't involve the modern scientific method as elaborated upon during the 17th century. Because no shit it didn't.

That's right. End of controversy, thank you for your admission that you are quibbling.

Sure. That's not a relevant point.

At all.

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:Tool design in early humans was a constantly evolving field - in design, in materials, in construction, in applications... This necessarily requires that our ancestors were capable of performing tests and recognizing differences. This is not science in a modern sense (again - no shit) but it is most assuredly a stop along the way.

Yeah. No shit. It's not science, AT ALL. Guessing that thunder was the work of gods was a stop along the way too, and it's not science, either.

Or, just to clarify the astounding point you're making, "things that aren't modern science aren't modern science".

No, I'm pretty sure that was taken as self-evident.

Such ludicrous one-dimensional reductionism is a way to look at things, I guess.

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:Inseparable and no distinction are not the same thing.

As it happens, that is in fact why I used the one word instead of the other!
:thumbsup

Let's look at what you just said:

Quote:it only follows if one allows a distinction to be made between science and technology - which I don't, though you evidently do.

So the only question that remains is whether you are really so stupid that you can't remember what you just said...

I already addressed this above. Since this is - when taken literally and context-free - inconsistent with several other statements I just made, a reasonable and/or sane person might be inclined to consider how they might be reconciled.

That's clearly not something you have any desire to attempt, I see. To each their own.

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  ... or you are the most lame and pathetic troll on he internet.

Yep. That's me!

I am the worst person on the whole internet. All of it. I'm the worst. No contest!

Thumbsup

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's not strawmanning when it's a direct fucking quote. Can you get any more stupid, Chippy?

Ah! I think I see the problem here. Chippy is a different person. Were you not aware of that?

Or are you just pulling the ol' I and I syllogism, Taq? I'd've given you more credit...

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:And what I said was that technology was inseparable from certain scientific ideas. Like testing. And explanation. Which were both very much involved in prehistoric tool use.

That doesn't make it science. And then you went on to say this -- wait for it....:
Quote:it only follows if one allows a distinction to be made between science and technology - which I don't, though you evidently do.

So your quibbling here is just as pathetic as BlowJob's.

I said - what I figured to be relatively uncontroversial; who knew? - that you are certainly correct in that only modern science is modern science. Things that are not modern science are then not modern science. That is true. Also useless.

What does not follow - and what I am rather perplexed that you'd rather froth on about rather than so much as discuss - is that anything which is not modern science does not possess any of the characteristics or ideas of modern science.

I would say there are certainly recognizably proto-scientific aspects throughout human endeavour (protip: this includes what one might call "technology", difficult though that word is to define) prior to the eventual formulation of the scientific method as discrete ideology.

See, that's actually what I said.

You're trying very hard to find trivialities to flail at. Perhaps you'd care to address the above?

(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
Quote:So, this is one of those "your OPINION is WRONG AND INFERIOR" things.

Gotcha.

NO. This is one of those "You refuse to see, so you stuck your head up your ass so you don't HAVE to see" things.

So, what I said, then.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
[quote='cjlr' pid='444896' dateline='1387317966']
[Image: blah-blah-blah-o.gif]
/quote]


Oh, look -- more quibbling, equivocation, and obfuscation from the internet's lamest troll. Rolleyes

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 02:00 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
Getting back to this inane bullshit...


(17-12-2013 04:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  And I didn't claim that was a quote.

I wonder what the problem was, then?


The problem was that you cried "Wolf" with a flaccid bullshit claim that I had somehow strawmanned what you had said when I didn't.


Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  What you DID say was this:


And yes, that is treating the two if they were one and the same.

I might draw your attention to a thing called context. As in, "[such] a distinction".

OH, look, the troll is trying and failing to deny saying what it clearly said. How cute.
Quote:But clearly that's crazy talk.

Yeah.

Quote:If you're so pathetically desperate to find something to argue against, well, that's your prerogative.

Not the case at all. Clearly you are projecting your own bullshit issues.

Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Looks like you wouldn't know a strawman if it bent you over.

Would I recognize an ad hominem?

If you are trying to insinuate that I had committed an Ad Hominem Fallacy, clearly you wouldn't recognize one of them if it fucked you up the ass, either.


Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  ped·ant
ˈpednt/
noun
noun: pedant; plural noun: pedants

[1] a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules [2] or with displaying academic learning.


1) an actual pedant would be concerned with having definitions correct, quite unlike you.

2) Yeah that sounds about right, poseur.

Shit, son, you got me!


"Son", really? Get a fucking clue.

Quote:Are you even trying?

It's not any kind of hard work at all. It's child's play.

Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That's right. End of controversy, thank you for your admission that you are quibbling.

Sure. That's not a relevant point.

At all.

Oh, look, the troll is wallowing in wishful thinking. Nice.

Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Yeah. No shit. It's not science, AT ALL. Guessing that thunder was the work of gods was a stop along the way too, and it's not science, either.

Or, just to clarify the astounding point you're making, "things that aren't modern science aren't modern science".

Oh, you see that I called you on your disingenuous bullshit of equivocating "science" with "modern science". How about that.



Quote:No, I'm pretty sure that was taken as self-evident.

Such ludicrous one-dimensional reductionism is a way to look at things, I guess.

Your desperation is showing. hth.

Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Let's look at what you just said:


So the only question that remains is whether you are really so stupid that you can't remember what you just said...

I already addressed this above.

NO, you didn't.


Quote:Since this is - when taken literally and context-free - inconsistent with several other statements I just made, a reasonable and/or sane person might be inclined to consider how they might be reconciled.

That's nice, but I quoted it in context.

Quote:That's clearly not something you have any desire to attempt, I see. To each their own.
Your sad attempt to equivocate is clear.

Quote:quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='444876' dateline='1387316179']
... or you are the most lame and pathetic troll on he internet.

Yep. That's me![/quote]


Indeed.

Quote:I am the worst person on the whole internet. All of it. I'm the worst. No contest!Thumbsup

You really are digging yourself a hole.


Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's not strawmanning when it's a direct fucking quote. Can you get any more stupid, Chippy?

Ah! I think I see the problem here. Chippy is a different person. Were you not aware of that?

One would think the bolding and underlining would give you a clue that I am quite aware of that.

Quote:Or are you just pulling the ol' I and I syllogism, Taq? I'd've given you more credit...

So you are just too stupid to get the comparison I made. No problem.

Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That doesn't make it science. And then you went on to say this -- wait for it....:

So your quibbling here is just as pathetic as BlowJob's.

I said - what I figured to be relatively uncontroversial; who knew? - that you are certainly correct in that only modern science is modern science.

Except that you didn't say that. And your quibbling, equivocating bullshit is irrelevant anyway.


Quote: Things that are not modern science are then not modern science. That is true. Also useless.

Useless, as you say.



Quote:What does not follow - and what I am rather perplexed that you'd rather froth on about rather than so much as discuss - is that anything which is not modern science does not possess any of the characteristics or ideas of modern science.

Strawman much? Possessing some characteristics of modern science does not make anything science. Just as, to get back to the point, technology having some elements in common with science does not make technology science. There is some overlap, but that doesn't make them the same thing.


Quote:I would say there are certainly recognizably proto-scientific aspects throughout human endeavour...

You can say anything, that doesn't make any of them Science or the scientific method.

Quote:(protip: this includes what one might call "technology", difficult though that word is to define)

More like a sad attempt at condescension. You FAIL.


Quote: prior to the eventual formulation of the scientific method as discrete ideology.

The scientific method is not an ideology. It's a method of inquiry. hth moron.

Quote:See, that's actually what I said.

Yeah, and it was bullshit then and it''s still bullshit.

Quote:You're trying very hard to find trivialities to flail at. Perhaps you'd care to address the above?

INCORRECT. It is you trying and failing in your desperate attempts to quibble over trivialities.


Quote:
(17-12-2013 03:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  NO. This is one of those "You refuse to see, so you stuck your head up your ass so you don't HAVE to see" things.

So, what I said, then.

Not at all. You are just too fucking stupid to be able to tell the difference.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 03:14 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(17-12-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To consider science and technology as discrete and separable would be a rather... novel way of considering things.

Cjlr, Technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. It is conceivable that science could exist in a vacuum.....sans technology. Such a notion is utterly ridiculous to you an I but it is apparently sensible to Taq. Even if we concede to the nit picking Taq is spewing....he is still wrong. Science itself can be dangerous. Madam Curie's life was cut short because she engaged in science. If individuals can suffer from engaging in science, that is enough to think that it is possible humanity can suffer from science as well. Humanity is just a set of individuals after all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 03:19 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(18-12-2013 03:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To consider science and technology as discrete and separable would be a rather... novel way of considering things.

Science itself can be dangerous. Madam Curie's life was cut short because she engaged in science. If individuals can suffer from engaging in science, that is enough to think that it is possible humanity can suffer from science as well. Humanity is just a set of individuals after all.

And as I pointed out many posts ago, most of humanity today exists because of science in one form or another from ages gone by and it's continued progression.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 03:33 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(18-12-2013 03:19 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  And as I pointed out many posts ago, most of humanity today exists because of science in one form or another from ages gone by and it's continued progression.

In gambling we call this being results orientated. Science could have easily destroyed most of humanity on at least a couple of occasions. Further if we expand the question to include all life instead of just humanity....science has lead to a destruction of biodiversity on this planet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 04:51 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(18-12-2013 03:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 03:19 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  And as I pointed out many posts ago, most of humanity today exists because of science in one form or another from ages gone by and it's continued progression.

In gambling we call this being results orientated. Science could have easily destroyed most of humanity on at least a couple of occasions. Further if we expand the question to include all life instead of just humanity....science has lead to a destruction of biodiversity on this planet.

[Image: you-are-fucking-retarded.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-12-2013, 04:57 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(18-12-2013 03:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 03:19 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  And as I pointed out many posts ago, most of humanity today exists because of science in one form or another from ages gone by and it's continued progression.

In gambling we call this being results orientated.

Fair enough, but the observation is just as accurate.

(18-12-2013 03:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Science could have easily destroyed most of humanity on at least a couple of occasions.

Examples?

(18-12-2013 03:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Further if we expand the question to include all life instead of just humanity....science has lead to a destruction of biodiversity on this planet.

Nope.

Simply because species or populations have been wiped out, that does not mean biodiversity has been destroyed. In fact, in a way it promotes biodiversity through succession; other more opportunistic species move into fill gaps created by the loss of another due to the new instability, which will themselves eventually be replaced by or themselves become more stable creatures within the community, effectively causing maintenance of the diversity through replacement.
Granted this occurs a tad faster in plants and fungi (the initial succession that is) than animals but the principal remains the same.
If you need an example of this, think fires; after particularly devastating brush and forest fires you will often find not only entirely new generations of the old trees but also you'll often find entirely new undergrowth appearing and replacing what used to be there because they are more opportunistic species and they capitalise on the newly cleared space, animals do this too, effectively reconstructing the community previously present, but with altered diversity of species.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
18-12-2013, 08:28 AM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(18-12-2013 04:57 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Nope.

Simply because species or populations have been wiped out, that does not mean biodiversity has been destroyed. In fact, in a way it promotes biodiversity through succession; other more opportunistic species move into fill gaps created by the loss of another due to the new instability, which will themselves eventually be replaced by or themselves become more stable creatures within the community, effectively causing maintenance of the diversity through replacement.
Granted this occurs a tad faster in plants and fungi (the initial succession that is) than animals but the principal remains the same.
If you need an example of this, think fires; after particularly devastating brush and forest fires you will often find not only entirely new generations of the old trees but also you'll often find entirely new undergrowth appearing and replacing what used to be there because they are more opportunistic species and they capitalise on the newly cleared space, animals do this too, effectively reconstructing the community previously present, but with altered diversity of species.

Oh, there you go, using fucking FACTS on him again. Rolleyes

Thumbsup

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 01:55 PM
RE: Now I become death...the destroyer of worlds
(18-12-2013 04:57 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Nope.

Simply because species or populations have been wiped out, that does not mean biodiversity has been destroyed. In fact, in a way it promotes biodiversity through succession; other more opportunistic species move into fill gaps created by the loss of another due to the new instability, which will themselves eventually be replaced by or themselves become more stable creatures within the community, effectively causing maintenance of the diversity through replacement.
Granted this occurs a tad faster in plants and fungi (the initial succession that is) than animals but the principal remains the same.
If you need an example of this, think fires; after particularly devastating brush and forest fires you will often find not only entirely new generations of the old trees but also you'll often find entirely new undergrowth appearing and replacing what used to be there because they are more opportunistic species and they capitalise on the newly cleared space, animals do this too, effectively reconstructing the community previously present, but with altered diversity of species.

A quick googling of the phrase, "biodiversity decline" will show you that you are wrong.

As far as the examples you asked for, I have provided one earlier...you will just have to dig it out of this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: