fatcheerleader

Random Thoughts

739 posts in this topic

science doesn't care what you believe, unless you are a liberal-socialist-globalist, then science can make exceptions for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, drunken_honkey said:

770470_1.jpg

 

That is correct. Science isn't partisan, politically correct, is influenced by what is popular or is influenced by those in power. That's what I love about it. My teachers can tell us to blindly believe something, just because that's what "Scientists say"and that one would have be an idiot for going against them. But that misses the point of science, in my mind. What great discoveries would have been made if people just accepted what they knew as truth at the time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Label me....  that's what I want.  I hear your bullshit answers and know it doesn't matter in the long run of things.... Fear leads to anger.... Anger leads to the dark side.

 

Small minds think alike.  I really don't care about your politics.  This is what talking politics leads to with die hards like yourselves with no intentions of changing....

bCfDJQ.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

whoa, easy there partner, no need to chop off my head!  there is no "believe" when it comes to science!  I agree with you!

 

I'm just saying the only reason I hear the generic, almost meaningless word called "science" anymore is about politically coercing people to admit that they "believe" in something that can't be proven - or even clearly defined!  and it seems nowadays that this generic term "science" or "scientist" has become interwoven with globalist, "leftist", socialist politics.  and science should have (actually it does not, by definition) nothing to do with "beliefs" and or "politics".  it is what it is, a fact is a fact.  a law of nature is a law of nature.  etc, etc.  

 

now the funny (scary) thing is - when it comes to gender and life, science seems to take the backseat and get bypassed, because (these easily proven and easily defined things) things like life and gender have recently become seen as "choices" - not science!  and that is pure madness.  

 

but yet "believing" random "scientific" theories about the beginning and the end of the world is "believing" science? and the person who does not "believe" these endless, ever-changing, and un-provable theories is the crazy one?  lol.

 

so whatever, no big deal here, have a good one.  I hope I'm explaining myself clearly and concisely, maybe I'm not?

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa, easy there pal, no need to burn me from the noose and check my birth certificate.... <sarcastically stated as to point out the pot calling the kettle black> [Meaning one who calls out hypocrisy shouldn't be a hypocrite]

 

Still don't care about your hard coded opinions...

 

And thanks, I will have a good day.  You have one yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, science called the kettle black.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On average, have you ever noticed how generally fat, unhealthy-looking, misshapen, and miserable rich people in powerful bureaucratic positions look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rick Pitino thinks that 5 games paid vacation is too harsh a penalty for his lacking oversight of his assistant coaches buying the services of strippers to dance and perform sex acts for the team's players on 22 separate occasions over the course of 4 years.

 

The patriarchy is strong in this one.

Edited by Maynard_G_Krebs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maynard_G_Krebs said:

On average, have you ever noticed how generally fat, unhealthy-looking, misshapen, and miserable rich people in powerful bureaucratic positions look?

 

Yup. I'd guess that stress has something to do with that. 

 

And those people probably have everything they could ever want at their fingertips, so their lifestyles probably aren't too healthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been noticing (historically) that NFL QBs that I would consider as "running" QBs (meaning that they are elusive and can typically run for positive yardage) usually get sacked the most.

 

for example, in 1990, the top 5 worst sack % QBs are:

 

MAJK Man 10.8

Jefferson George (IND) 10.0 

Skid-Marc Wilson (PATS)  9.9

QB EAGLES 9.5

Vinny Testesverdes 9.4

.....

then, with the best sack % is:  The Mark Rypien Experience at 1.9

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya sometimes its a chicken and egg thing.

 

Does the qb runs more out of necessity because no one is open or the line blows. 

 

Or are they scrambling because they arent seeing the open wrs. 

 

Rypien was behind one of the all time great lines in this example and randles was historically bad. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.