NationStates

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Alexa, what is a scientific consensus?

TDIL science is done by consensus.

Usually, yes.

Consensus until an anomaly presents itself, as of now our climate models are pretty fucking on point.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
No you’re telling me things we should compromise over. Funny how they’re all things you want.

The only two suggesions I've made was not letting Miami drown and a vague notion of not fucking over the working class.

Again, you're imagining my views to cast me as the villainous hypocrite to morally justify why you're okay with Reps not compromising on the wall.

Because you and everyone else who talks about compromising, aren’t being honest. Your notion of compromise is “give me what I want, and you get nothing” and you couch it in “my stance is reasonable your stance is not”

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
The only two suggesions I've made was not letting Miami drown and a vague notion of not fucking over the working class.

Again, you're imagining my views to cast me as the villainous hypocrite to morally justify why you're okay with Reps not compromising on the wall.

Because you and everyone else who talks about compromising, aren’t being honest. Your notion of compromise is “give me what I want, and you get nothing” and you couch it in “my stance is reasonable your stance is not”

In the terms of the environment, I am right, though.

And these are the views of the party you support more, not mine. I'd be happy to up funding in the military for other stuff, relax gun laws for other stuff, and deregulate for other stuff.

The environment is non-negotiable for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to "the experts agree with me and I like living (most days)"

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Ah I See, we should compromise cause your views are right, and the Democrats should not compromise cause our views our wrong.



Quelle surprise

Alexa, what is a scientific consensus?

The wall is less a deterrent to migration than a monument to Donnie's vanity.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
TDIL science is done by consensus.

Usually, yes.

Consensus until an anomaly presents itself, as of now our climate models are pretty fucking on point.

Nevermind the 97% figure is incredibly contrived, science is not done by consensus. If 97% of all scientists were in consensus that chlorophyll had nothing to do with photosynthesis, then 97% of scientists would be wrong.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
No you’re telling me things we should compromise over. Funny how they’re all things you want.

The only two suggesions I've made was not letting Miami drown and a vague notion of not fucking over the working class.

Again, you're imagining my views to cast me as the villainous hypocrite to morally justify why you're okay with Reps not compromising on the wall.

These suggestions become policies, these policies become bills. These bills suck.

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Alexa, what is a scientific consensus?

TDIL science is done by consensus.

So Andrew Wakefield was right all along.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Because you and everyone else who talks about compromising, aren’t being honest. Your notion of compromise is “give me what I want, and you get nothing” and you couch it in “my stance is reasonable your stance is not”

In the terms of the environment, I am right, though.

And these are the views of the party you support more, not mine. I'd be happy to up funding in the military for other stuff, relax gun laws for other stuff, and deregulate for other stuff.

The environment is non-negotiable for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to "the experts agree with me and I like living (most days)"

Of course you are. “I’m right, my opponents wrong. And that’s just abject fact I’m in no way obligated to convince my opponents they must just capitulate to my sheer verocity.”

Funny how that hasn’t worked yet after 20 years

Petrasylvania wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Alexa, what is a scientific consensus?

The wall is less a deterrent to migration than a monument to Donnie's vanity.

Gauth reaching do the illogical conclusion. Must be Tuesday.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Because you and everyone else who talks about compromising, aren’t being honest. Your notion of compromise is “give me what I want, and you get nothing” and you couch it in “my stance is reasonable your stance is not”

In the terms of the environment, I am right, though.

And these are the views of the party you support more, not mine. I'd be happy to up funding in the military for other stuff, relax gun laws for other stuff, and deregulate for other stuff.

The environment is non-negotiable for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to "the experts agree with me and I like living (most days)"

You're also not part of the Democratic leadership, which doesn't make good compromises.

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Usually, yes.

Consensus until an anomaly presents itself, as of now our climate models are pretty fucking on point.

Nevermind the 97% figure is incredibly contrived, science is not done by consensus. If 97% of all scientists were in consensus that chlorophyll had nothing to do with photosynthesis, then 97% of scientists would be wrong.

"99% of scientists say gravity exists, there's still a possibility that they're wrong so jury's out"

Again, consensus until anomaly, then divergence and new consensus. "Consensus" isn't even the right word, for "metascience" the term is "paradigm"

Yes, paradigm shifts happen. This does not render the predictions made thirty years ago (which are being proven right) invalid. Quite the opposite, a theory that survives this long under such scrutiny and skepticism tends to be correct. Like evolution.

Since the science and facts are in agreement we should not compromise.

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
In the terms of the environment, I am right, though.

And these are the views of the party you support more, not mine. I'd be happy to up funding in the military for other stuff, relax gun laws for other stuff, and deregulate for other stuff.

The environment is non-negotiable for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to "the experts agree with me and I like living (most days)"

Of course you are. “I’m right, my opponents wrong. And that’s just abject fact I’m in no way obligated to convince my opponents they must just capitulate to my sheer verocity.”

Funny how that hasn’t worked yet after 20 years

With regards to environment, you've elected to ignore the current scientific consensus under the notion that paradigm shifts happen. Clearly no amount of facts or logic will help here considering you've granted yourself a mechanism to handwave that.

All of this still doesn't change the fact that this argument is you trying to cast me in a particular role to justify how you can support Reps here with the wall while bemoaning the loss of compromise.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Nevermind the 97% figure is incredibly contrived, science is not done by consensus. If 97% of all scientists were in consensus that chlorophyll had nothing to do with photosynthesis, then 97% of scientists would be wrong.

"99% of scientists say gravity exists, there's still a possibility that they're wrong so jury's out"

Again, consensus until anomaly, then divergence and new consensus. "Consensus" isn't even the right word, for "metascience" the term is "paradigm"

Yes, paradigm shifts happen. This does not render the predictions made thirty years ago (which are being proven right) invalid. Quite the opposite, a theory that survives this long under such scrutiny and skepticism tends to be correct. Like evolution.

Since the science and facts are in agreement we should not compromise.

We're not talking about facts, or science, or paradigm. We're talking about policies and laws, on which you are expressing an opinion. That opinion isn't objective fact.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Nevermind the 97% figure is incredibly contrived, science is not done by consensus. If 97% of all scientists were in consensus that chlorophyll had nothing to do with photosynthesis, then 97% of scientists would be wrong.

"99% of scientists say gravity exists, there's still a possibility that they're wrong so jury's out"

Again, consensus until anomaly, then divergence and new consensus. "Consensus" isn't even the right word, for "metascience" the term is "paradigm"

Yes, paradigm shifts happen. This does not render the predictions made thirty years ago (which are being proven right) invalid. Quite the opposite, a theory that survives this long under such scrutiny and skepticism tends to be correct. Like evolution.

Since the science and facts are in agreement we should not compromise.

Just like Gauth reaching to the exteme, though you’re more on track. Gravity is a probable, measurable phenomenon (though nobody is really sure how it works). So it wouldn’t matter if 99% said it didn’t exist, what matters is the demonstrable evidence. The problem with the GE argument is it rests on consensus, not demonstrable phenonmenon.

And, side note, the validity of GW isn’t the point. The point is nobody is realiy interested in compromising. Everyone’s view of compromise is “my position is right, your position is wrong and you should just see how right I am and capitulate to me rather than work out a deal”


Believe it or not, “because I’m right” doesn’t have the persuasive power you think it does, even if it’s true.

Valrifell wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:

Of course you are. “I’m right, my opponents wrong. And that’s just abject fact I’m in no way obligated to convince my opponents they must just capitulate to my sheer verocity.”

Funny how that hasn’t worked yet after 20 years

With regards to environment, you've elected to ignore the current scientific consensus under the notion that paradigm shifts happen. Clearly no amount of facts or logic will help here considering you've granted yourself a mechanism to handwave that.

All of this still doesn't change the fact that this argument is you trying to cast me in a particular role to justify how you can support Reps here with the wall while bemoaning the loss of compromise.

No I’ve ignore the consensus because the concensus isn’t proof of anything. 1000 years ago everyone thought Galen’s humors was “settled science”. The one guy who knows it’s bullshit doesn’t still practice it just because everyone else says so.

Corrian wrote:Trump commits to $750bn US defence budget just a week after saying $717bn is 'crazy'

Hmm maybe they are sneaking the money in the Defense Budget to build the wall

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
With regards to environment, you've elected to ignore the current scientific consensus under the notion that paradigm shifts happen. Clearly no amount of facts or logic will help here considering you've granted yourself a mechanism to handwave that.

All of this still doesn't change the fact that this argument is you trying to cast me in a particular role to justify how you can support Reps here with the wall while bemoaning the loss of compromise.

No I’ve ignore the consensus because the concensus isn’t proof of anything. 1000 years ago everyone thought Galen’s humors was “settled science”. The one guy who knows it’s bullshit doesn’t still practice it just because everyone else says so.

So how do you know it's bullshit? What's your expertise in this area?

Maineiacs wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
No I’ve ignore the consensus because the concensus isn’t proof of anything. 1000 years ago everyone thought Galen’s humors was “settled science”. The one guy who knows it’s bullshit doesn’t still practice it just because everyone else says so.

So how do you know it's bullshit? What's your expertise in this area?

Sigh. Way to miss the point Copernicus

Tarsonis wrote:

Corrian wrote:Trump commits to $750bn US defence budget just a week after saying $717bn is 'crazy'

Hmm maybe they are sneaking the money in the Defense Budget to build the wall

Fortifications do seem to be military in nature...

Tarsonis wrote:

Maineiacs wrote:
So how do you know it's bullshit? What's your expertise in this area?

Sigh. Way to miss the point Copernicus

You had a point? Do tell, oh Great One.

Corrian wrote:Trump commits to $750bn US defence budget just a week after saying $717bn is 'crazy'

Trump is a hypocrite. Water is wet.

Pope is catholic.

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
With regards to environment, you've elected to ignore the current scientific consensus under the notion that paradigm shifts happen. Clearly no amount of facts or logic will help here considering you've granted yourself a mechanism to handwave that.

All of this still doesn't change the fact that this argument is you trying to cast me in a particular role to justify how you can support Reps here with the wall while bemoaning the loss of compromise.

No I’ve ignore the consensus because the concensus isn’t proof of anything. 1000 years ago everyone thought Galen’s humors was “settled science”. The one guy who knows it’s bullshit doesn’t still practice it just because everyone else says so.

So, that reason boils down to "Science was wrong before it can be wrong now!".

That reason is bad beacuse everything can be wrong before and can be wrong now. That really doesn't get us anywhere.

The facts have come in. We need to do this in order to not kill or displace millions.

However I would be willing to compromise on the issue of the environment for a united humanity colonising other planets.

Then we can just say fuck the earth, we have so many other planets to live on.

Tarsonis wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:Two in three Republicans would rather see a shutdown than compromise on the border wall

I wonder if they realize that Republicans will be blamed more for this? Or, if you're Trump, maybe find a way to sneak money into the defense budget and have the military build the wall

Republicans are always blamed for it.

Under Obama, Republicans were blamed for refusing to capitulate to the Democratic Majority. Now they'll be blamed because they're not ceding to the minority. A shut down is always the Republicans fault. The beauty of press that's majority Democrat.

*coughs

In all fairness, it's both sides, but it's more of Trump at the end of the day in my view.

Tarsonis wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
With regards to environment, you've elected to ignore the current scientific consensus under the notion that paradigm shifts happen. Clearly no amount of facts or logic will help here considering you've granted yourself a mechanism to handwave that.

All of this still doesn't change the fact that this argument is you trying to cast me in a particular role to justify how you can support Reps here with the wall while bemoaning the loss of compromise.

No I’ve ignore the consensus because the concensus isn’t proof of anything. 1000 years ago everyone thought Galen’s humors was “settled science”. The one guy who knows it’s bullshit doesn’t still practice it just because everyone else says so.

No, this is exactly what I'm accusing you of.

1000 years ago the topic of helio vs geocentrism was contested very lightly for the past thousand years, the math and observations didn't add up. Far from the settled issue you present it to be.

Your mindset is more akin to rejecting heliocentrism because science has been "wrong" before. Climage change aligns with all the data we have, there is no plausible alternative as there were for every historical case you're thinking of