Jump to content


MLD Woody

Member Since 20 Jan 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:15 PM
***--

Topics I've Started

Anyone own a Windows Phone?

10 July 2014 - 06:48 AM

I need to get a phone for work and I figured I'd just combined my personal and work phones. For security reasons, I can only go Apple or windows phone. I've never used one before and was wondering if anyone had any feedback.

Ann Coulter on Soccer

05 July 2014 - 01:00 PM

Part 1:  http://www.anncoulte...2014-06-25.html

 

Part 2: http://www.anncoulte...2014-07-02.html

 

 

Ann Coulter is a cunt. There is only one female in the world I've ever felt deserved to be called a cunt, and it is Ann Coulter. This is the most retarded, poorly researched, awful article I may have ever read. The amount of mistakes and inaccuracies in these articles even tower over any posts on the board. This woman needs to stop talking. She needs to have her ability to reach the masses taken away from her. I read these articles and I actually got angry out the amount of ignorance within them.


The Rainbow Belongs to God

04 July 2014 - 02:17 AM

http://www.huffingto..._n_5555126.html


Open Carry

10 June 2014 - 01:02 AM

I'm curious, what do our resident gun enthusiasts think about this? Do you support open carry? What do you think of dudes walking into restaurants and shit with big ass rifles on their back?


Science Denialism

08 June 2014 - 03:50 PM

Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?   http://eurpub.oxford...19/1/2.full.pdf

 

 

Defined as "he employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists"

 

 

5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism, first suggested by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle:

  1. Conspiracy theories
    When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
  2. Fake experts
    These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'.
  3. Cherry picking
    This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
  4. Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
    The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
  5. Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
    Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a 'threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy'.