Even global climate change can get taxed!

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#61
Another one what? I read it just fine, so what is wrong with evolutionary psychology in your opinion?
Another one who can't read

I was specifically stressing the point that (when done properly) evolutionary psychology is a true science and that the word "evolutionary" makes it different from regular psychology which is most of the time pseudocscience.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#63
A fine example of yet another fallacy

I was talking about evolutionary psychology (and not the huge "just-so story" part of it); do you know the difference but conveniently leave the first word out or you need some explanation?
You aren't making any sense, there were no fallacies and you're using words out of context. LOL!

I have yet to see someone present a meaningful argument against my conclusions.
Present a meaningful conclusion and you might get your wish.

I was specifically stressing the point that (when done properly) evolutionary psychology is a true science and that the word "evolutionary" makes it different from regular psychology which is most of the time pseudocscience.
LMAO!
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#64
Another one who can't read

I was specifically stressing the point that (when done properly) evolutionary psychology is a true science and that the word "evolutionary" makes it different from regular psychology which is most of the time pseudocscience.
Again, i can read just fine. However, i cant read what makes NO sense, as you have so frequently put forth in many posts, not just the ones in the thread.

And WOW @ psychology being psuedo-science. Are you REALLY seirous? I mean....for real real??? Please, if you possbily can, explain that to me.

This ought to be fun.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#73
IMO his "shenanigans" have kept this thread going and made it interesting to read as opposed to having one opinion and a bunch of co-signs.
It stretches FAR beyond this thread as far as shenanigans go. ThaG may be smart, no one is denying that, but don't come up here and say something and then give a link to a book for "evidence". I didn't realize MIT was located in Copout, USA.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#74
IMO his "shenanigans" have kept this thread going and made it interesting to read as opposed to having one opinion and a bunch of co-signs.
As opposed to you co-signing for him 99.9% of the time and looking just as foolish as he does? His shenanigans have kept this thread OFF TOPIC, and of course I would expect you to find bottle spinning "interesting"....whatever the fuck that is.

Fail again.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#76
As opposed to you co-signing for him 99.9% of the time and looking just as foolish as he does? His shenanigans have kept this thread OFF TOPIC, and of course I would expect you to find bottle spinning "interesting"....whatever the fuck that is.

Fail again.


I would be willing to bet that I co-sign with ThaG no where near 99.9% of the time.

I have disagreed with ThaG many times, particularity in discussions relating to economics, psychology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, and our respective understandings of human nature. Just because I have agreed with him in this particular thread, and in some other recent discussions, is not evidence that I agree with him 99.9% of the time.

As much as you seem to take issue with perceptions purported as facts, I am surprised you would allow yourself to commit such a fallacy as assuming I co-sign with ThaG 99.9% of the time and suggesting that I look at foolish as he does.

Do you find it at all ironic or worthy of introspection that you are seemingly upset with, and accusing ThaG of something that is similar to what other people have suggested you have done as well?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#77
It stretches FAR beyond this thread as far as shenanigans go. ThaG may be smart, no one is denying that, but don't come up here and say something and then give a link to a book for "evidence". I didn't realize MIT was located in Copout, USA.
First, it's not a book, and second, I didn't realize it is not free; it has never asked me to pay for the article but then the IP of my computer is somewhat special, which I forgot. Sorry about that.

The article examines the development of the way people think and what kind of epistemic choices they make, why it is so hard to get people to view the world scientifically and why once they have went in the other direction it is pretty much pointless to try to change them. Which is very relevant to the thread because this is exactly what I have been trying to do, not surprisingly with little success.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#78
It stretches FAR beyond this thread as far as shenanigans go. ThaG may be smart, no one is denying that, but don't come up here and say something and then give a link to a book for "evidence". I didn't realize MIT was located in Copout, USA.


I understand that, and respect what you are saying. I feel though that we are often quick to tell someone to stop posting when we disagree with them, but those disagreements often turn into the most active and viewed threads. In the case of the link, you make a valid point, but I guess I am willing to put up with a few shenanigans because of what someone brings to the discussion.

I didn't agree with him often, but I wish Tadou (and many others) would post here again just because he brought a POV that was unique to the board and created a lot of interesting discussions and entertainment in threads while many other people who disagreed with him often suggested he stop posting all together.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#79
First, it's not a book, and second, I didn't realize it is not free; it has never asked me to pay for the article but then the IP of my computer is somewhat special, which I forgot. Sorry about that.

The article examines the development of the way people think and what kind of epistemic choices they make, why it is so hard to get people to view the world scientifically and why once they have went in the other direction it is pretty much pointless to try to change them. Which is very relevant to the thread because this is exactly what I have been trying to do, not surprisingly with little success.
You know why? Because you're like that guy that ONLY looks at stats when scouting a baseball player, period. You NEVER take into account that there are OTHER things to look at. You are emotionally tied to scientific data/evidence/stats exclusively. You only see life through a paper towel tube, so you're tied ONLY to what you see and what you THINK may happen based on stats. With that being the case, you are NEVER going to see eye to eye with ANYONE outside YOUR community (the strictly scientific one). Have you NOT figured that out yet? Not to mention, your imperialistic views that you are always right and everyone is always wrong...this has been pointed out to you MANY times and all you do is shrug it off.

Yes, shenanigans and bullshit. The longer you walk around with your nose in the air the more likely its gonna get snagged on a tree limb....
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#80
You know why? Because you're like that guy that ONLY looks at stats when scouting a baseball player, period. You NEVER take into account that there are OTHER things to look at. You are emotionally tied to scientific data/evidence/stats exclusively. You only see life through a paper towel tube, so you're tied ONLY to what you see and what you THINK may happen based on stats. With that being the case, you are NEVER going to see eye to eye with ANYONE outside YOUR community (the strictly scientific one). Have you NOT figured that out yet? Not to mention, your imperialistic views that you are always right and everyone is always wrong...this has been pointed out to you MANY times and all you do is shrug it off.

Yes, shenanigans and bullshit. The longer you walk around with your nose in the air the more likely its gonna get snagged on a tree limb....
Read that again, think carefully and honestly whether these are good arguments.

What you are proposing is that we should abandon the solid epistemology of science in favor of gut feelings.