Afftrax
Afftrax
Jun 16
1

Hahahahaha, you really are awesome. Just two sentences, and you’ve proven all my points. Read more

Jun 16
4

Sorry (not really), I’m not playing your game. You cannot be convinced, so there’s no point having an educated discussion. No matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how often your terrible, illogical belief system/worldview/”philosophy” is refuted, you won’t accept it, because what must Read more

Jun 5
Save

The guy who tried to help was one of the guys who pushed him. You can see he knew he’d done something wrong and tried to help. Whether he did it out of compassion or embarrassment because he was caught on cam is another matter entirely.

May 26
Save

Overpopulation is not solely about numbers. It’s about carrying capacity, the ability of an environment to sustain a population. Even if our population peters out in 2050 to about 10 billion, they all need to be fed, housed, and clothed. And no one wants to live in squalor, but have some modicum of Read more

May 3
1

Of course. But my post was about the tendency of some people to dismiss and ridicule curiosity-driven research. The paper mentioned in the article has lots of aspects to be critical about. But calling this type of research “silly” instead of addressing the paper is typical of people who have no idea about the subject Read more

Apr 23
Save

“[…] if a bunch of people want to work on some idea that’s not peer reviewed *yet*, why is that so bad?” Read more

Apr 23
1

If there’s a problem at all with his approach then it’s him trying to get other scientists on board and start working on his hypothesis before anyone had the chance to review it. I don’t mind him throwing his ideas out there, although I think his confidence in his stuff is not warranted - back then I’ve read his book, Read more

Apr 22
5

Peer review is quality control. You can present your ideas, but you have to withstand the scrutiny of your peers in order to ensure that certain standards are upheld. Trying to bypass this process and simply assuming you are right about your hypothesis and everybody has to take it seriously Read more

Apr 9
1

The good on which you expound is inextricably tied to a mountain of bad that, at least in my mind, greatly outweighs the good by a wide margin. And even if religion were entirely benign, there would still be the aspect that is to me the most insidious: the abdication of reason in favor of faith. Read more

Mar 24
1

You misread my post, at least partially. I acknowledge that “conservation hunting” works sometimes. But just because it works doesn’t mean it’s right. Is this really who we want to be? We need a complete change of attitude towards nature if we want to have a somewhat intact biosphere, which we still

Mar 21
6

What you say is true, at least to some extent, for the US. But what about the ethical side of trophy hunting? Read more

Feb 24
Save

Just goes to show how little you know about the theory of evolution or science in general. But then again, you don’t want to know.
Read more

Feb 24
1

I appreciate you trying to have a conversation here, but the guy (and anyone of his ilk) you are answering to is complete lost to any rational discourse. He’s completely dependent on science and uses it (in the form of technology, medicine, etc.) when it’s convenient to him and derides it when it Read more

Dec 24
Save

State-sponsored hacking and counter-hacking already happens worldwide, even if it rarely surfaces. If you think only the Chinese actively do it and the US or Canada or Russia or France don’t do it or only react to it, you might be a bit naive (I don’t think you are). Western nations even hack each other, not just real Read more

Dec 24
Save

No need to drag the biosphere down with us (I know, we’re already doing it, but at least there’s an off chance that we come to our senses and revert course).