It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Rants About Socialism and the End of the World

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Jonjonj

Do you deny that the number dying is greater than the number being born?

People aren't having kids and there's a good reason for that.


I honestly don't know if that is true but let's suppose it is.

You just solved the frickin problem, more die, less born, population goes down, win!

Do you even think sometimes?




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The point IS.

An opinion of a scientist, A Cortez, Who the eff ever.

IS NO MORE IMPORTANT than anyone elses.

From the word EQUALITY.


I fully disagree with that statement, in the terms you're using it.

Obviously, everyone is equal. But, and expert's voice holds more weight than a non-expert, when discussing the topic that person is an expert in.

I dabble with guitar. Played a couple gigs, mostly basic rhythm stuff. However, my opinions on guitar things (which guitar is better built, which guitar has a warmer tone, etc) are definitely not equal to someone like Tony Iommi, John 5, etc.

In a basic sense, we are all equal. But you can't tell me that you truly believe that your opinion on climate change is no less valid than the scientific findings of someone with a PhD in climate science.

Unless you are a Dr. of climate science, that just isn't true. Experts are experts for a reason.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The point IS.

An opinion of a scientist, A Cortez, Who the eff ever.

IS NO MORE IMPORTANT than anyone elses.

From the word EQUALITY.


Is it more important is fairly subjective.

However when discussing the area of their expertise it is more likely to be informed, valid and accurate.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You don't understand anything when it comes to science quit embarrassing yourself. LMAO

What you fail to realize is that the scientists who agree, are only agreeing after they have done their own research or agree that the proper scientific method has been done in order to come to their conclusion.

Here maybe this will help but I doubt it. LMAO
Six steps of the scientific method

Steps in the Scientific Process

Step 1: Ask a question. For the first step, help your child form a question, hopefully one that can be answered! ...
Step 2: Do background research. ...
Step 3: Construct a hypothesis. ...
Step 4: Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. ...
Step 5: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion. ...
Step 6: Share your results.

You are acting like there was no scientific process followed. Are you an idiot or just playing dumb?
edit on 25-2-2019 by Rokal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Do you?

As I said the reason Millennials aren't having children is because the world sucks. You just agreed that it's a good solution to the world's problems.

So where was I wrong?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator




Obviously, everyone is equal. But, and expert's voice holds more weight than a non-expert, when discussing the topic that person is an expert in.


No it GD does not.

Because WE ARENT talking about science.

We are talking about using the bold face FORCE of totalitarianism to push A GD political agenda that's hijacked 'science' to get what they want.

We're talking about Politics.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

I understand it pretty effing well.



It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.




It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.


Subject to CHANGE.

Oh the GD irony.


What's ironic about this?

Ok, then you don't understand scientific consensus.

A scientific consensus does not mean that it can't change. I'll repeat myself since you're ignoring most of my argument:
There's a scientific consensus on pretty much every scientific theory (not hypotheses, theories and laws). That does NOT mean that the consensus is ironclad and can never change. Scientific theories (i.e. a consensus) change ALL THE TIME.

Just because a large group of scientists have formed a consensus about climate change does not mean, in any way shape or form, that scientific inquiry (using the scientific method) has stopped and no research will ever be done again.

That isn't how science works. And that isn't what is happening in this instance either. Getting right-wing propaganda from questionable sources probably led you to these conclusions, but they just aren't true.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator




Obviously, everyone is equal. But, and expert's voice holds more weight than a non-expert, when discussing the topic that person is an expert in.


No it GD does not.

Because WE ARENT talking about science.

We are talking about using the bold face FORCE of totalitarianism to push A GD political agenda that's hijacked 'science' to get what they want.

We're talking about Politics.




^^^^ this is why you can't have an intelligent debate with idiots. LMAO



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

A similar percentage of physicists say that gravity is a thing.

Is that authoritarian propaganda?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator




Obviously, everyone is equal. But, and expert's voice holds more weight than a non-expert, when discussing the topic that person is an expert in.


No it GD does not.

Because WE ARENT talking about science.

We are talking about using the bold face FORCE of totalitarianism to push A GD political agenda that's hijacked 'science' to get what they want.

We're talking about Politics.



We most definitely are talking about science. No, AOC's opinion doesn't hold more weight than yours. Neither does Trump's. Because they AREN'T experts.

Scientists are. Their opinion holds more weight, if only because they are going through a lot of data that you or I wouldn't even be able to comprehend, let alone form an opinion on.

You're just flat out denying science right now, because it goes against your beliefs. That's the most un-scientific thing you can possibly do.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Sure can't have an intelligent debate with anyone that parrots AOC.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Sure can't have an intelligent debate with anyone named neo96.
edit on 2/25/2019 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Sure can't have an intelligent debate with anyone that parrots AOC.



I can't speak for others, but I'm not parroting anyone. I couldn't care less what AOC says, because this is a SCIENTIFIC conversation, and she isn't a scientist.

I'm looking at the findings of actual scientists, which is pretty bleak.

Not everything has to be political. Again, I don't care in the slightest that AOC agrees with the scientists, and Trump doesn't, or any other politician. I care what the scientists have to say, because they're the experts.

I'm done debating, since people who deny basic science aren't worth my time.




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




As I said the reason Millennials aren't having children is because the world sucks.

I disagree.
I would submit millennials do not know how to do the sects properly.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Jonjonj

Do you?

As I said the reason Millennials aren't having children is because the world sucks. You just agreed that it's a good solution to the world's problems.

So where was I wrong?


You said people, not millennials. I am talking worldwide, you are talking North America and Europe. It's why I said I am not sure about the numbers 'cos guess what? Africa, Asia and South America have no problems with birth rates and...have no problem with the situation as it stands.

No, people like you just want the European and North Americans to stop having children, agenda much?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The Boomers really should be renamed Schrodinger's Generation.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   

he chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpretedto have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts




The most influential and most debated article was the 2013 paper by Cook, et al., which popularized the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content.


Back to how awesome I am.

Interpreation.

Analysis of abstracts.

And last but not GD least.



GD opinion.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Because AOC was talking about every single person in the world and not the US.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Jonjonj

Because AOC was talking about every single person in the world and not the US.


And like I said in another thread: Good luck exporting that idea to Africa, Asia and South America!




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Jonjonj

Do you?

As I said the reason Millennials aren't having children is because the world sucks. You just agreed that it's a good solution to the world's problems.

So where was I wrong?


You mean because THEY think it sucks. These people who have not been alive long enough to know how good we actually have it in this world today compared to the past. Yeah, they think it sucks because they were told how awesome they were all their lives, and when reality hit, they determined it sucked.

Welcome to reality....but as for the world sucking, it sure as hell is better than it was from 1930 - 1950 !! Now that was a sucky time for millions of people that were killed.

But, today's world sucks because, feelz. And the fears of touching others and being accused of sexual harassment might have a bit to do with that decision not to have kids as well.

Give me a break. This complaint is coming from a generation that was groomed to think nothing should ever go wrong and they would be given 2 unicorns and a pot of gold when they grew up just for being alive.

Here's their participation trophy, so they don't feel left out and have their delicate feelz hurt.




new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join