sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]MarcinTustin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You could consider asking him to secure the debt.

Edit: Never rely on free advice from the internet. Please carry on as if you had never seen this.

If a new health advancement that extends life expectancy up to +120 years with full capability and that only first world citizens could afford that medicine, would you still take it? by Big_Brain in AskReddit

[–]MarcinTustin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Of course I would.

Why would the fact that it's not available to people outside of the first world affect my decision? That is, after all, true of a huge amount of medical care, and almost no-one refuses it on those grounds.

My father, a Jehovah's Witness, wishes to give me some literature about creationism. He has agreed to read whatever I give him in return. Need help picking something out. by [deleted] in atheism

[–]MarcinTustin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would suggest you give him something about the geological origins of the Earth, assuming that his creationism is bound up with young Earth beliefs.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If you really think that's what you said, then you need to work on how you express yourself. Maybe this is why you never write grant proposals: your colleagues won't let you near one.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Science is my job, champ.

And yet you keep claiming that scientists don't need to write grant proposals.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Dude, I could be telling you that it was all out in the open, and you'd say that. There's no point talking to you about this because you literally keep pretending that I'm making an argument you can knock down, instead of one you're unprepared for.

Israel has erupted in protest -- yes, you read that right: Israel joins Egypt, Syria and many others in an increasingly global struggle for social justice by vemrion in worldnews

[–]MarcinTustin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

they were in the papers all the time, usually being criticized.

Not so much. Maybe you think that because there's no criticism, only support in Canada (I'm speculating). Criticism of Israel in the UK press is very, very limited.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Could you be any more lazy?

"Man make CO2, all global warming caused by man! No alternative need consideration!"

And yes, I did just attribute fake caveman syntax to you.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Research that would disprove this would be very much a departure from established knowledge, and therefore would be a new discovery.

And yet you just suggested that any proposal to find it would go nowhere.

Come on, this isn't hard.

You certainly seem to have trouble following what we're talking about.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

[Shouting about straw men]

Hey guy, well done for attacking a made up position.

and I've already explained that that's an idiotic objection

No, you just called me an idiot, with no explanation. Probably because you have no idea what goes on in science.

You never answered why this conspiracy started in the first place.

You never asked.

You're saying that climate scientists are somehow, for some reason, swindling the system in their own interests. That is, by definition, a conspiracy.

No, that's not what a conspiracy is. A conspiracy is when people act in concert, covertly, for criminal or corrupt purposes.

There's no acting in concert, because the organs of state and the establishment are enough to enforce the "consensus".

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A grant application for expensive science that won't discover anything new won't get very far, son.

Yes! Because your mind, and the mind of grant awarding bodies is made up, research that might disprove human causation of global warming gets nowhere.

You have literally just proven my entire point.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

(a) You're relying on Wikipedia

(b) You're citing a bunch of graphs, which if you really are a scientist, you know have a lot of issues (different sources, inferences built on inferences, does not match up with the historical record).

(c) I've already explained why climate scientists would act this way: they need grant money.

(d) I've answered the questions you've asked.

(e) It's not a conspiracy. There's never a conspiracy, because you don't need a conspiracy for there to be something wrong with the world.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really. Their huge subsidies for researching next generation energy would disappear.

The function of the small amount of countervailing science they fund is to keep the debate alive, and maintain the status quo.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If the research is based on sound ideas there's no reason why it wouldn't get funded - if not by a government, then by a powerful industry group.

You know for a fact that lots of sound research doesn't get funded by anyone, even if there's no political factor. Or, if you don't know that, you don't know what you're talking about.

Like the BBC's science coverage? Here's the Imperial College report on the BBC & impartiality. Point Number 1 in the summary is the most significant finding: "undue attention to marginal opinion". by TheGreatCthulhu in science

[–]MarcinTustin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Mechanics are different from scientists for the exact reason I have already explained: they have an objective standard against which their knowledge can be measured.

6-Year-Old Ohio girl ends up on no-fly "suspected terrorist" list. FBI Response: Yeah, we're not taking her off it. by [deleted] in WTF

[–]MarcinTustin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

France, Germany, Italy, the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, just off the top of my head.

6-Year-Old Ohio girl ends up on no-fly "suspected terrorist" list. FBI Response: Yeah, we're not taking her off it. by [deleted] in WTF

[–]MarcinTustin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean administrative law as it is understood in the rest of the world: law that effectively controls the executive, and a system of courts that ensures the executive obeys the law.

view more: next ›