DrCribbens

Registered bored user

DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior If you look up 'irony' in the dictionary it says 'monkwarrior accusing someone of deflection'.

How about you answer my points? Do you have any answers or are you just going to change the subject again?
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior Perhaps the similar pattern is caused by everyone but you seeing the same enormous flaws in your argument. 

Explain to me how this man working for NIST is relevant, given that:

1. His job for NIST was developing apps for the iPhone. Nothing to do with being 'a government researcher' as both the title of the video and your post try to mislead us.
2. He admits having had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 investigation.
3. He admits having had absolutely nothing to do with the writing of the report about the 9/11 investigation.
4. He admits that he got his facts from watching some documentaries (note that as we don't know which documentaries, we have no idea of the quality of them, but from what he said we know they were biased in favour of the conspiracy theory).
5. Unlike the people in NIST who carried out the investigation, he has no background or qualifications in structural engineering.

Why should we take his views any more seriously than we take, say, yours?
DrCribbens wrote:
That. Is. Hysterical.
DrCribbens wrote:
You're really clutching at straws now, Monky. A couple of other interesting quotes from this guy which you conveniently fail to mention:

From this video:
"NIST was given the task of investigating the World Trade Center collapses... I was not involved in those investigations or writing those reports but I was certainly aware that that research study was going on. NIST's role as I understand it was to investigate the collapse of the 3 World Trade Center towers..."

From a letter he wrote to Europhysics News:
"I did not contribute to the NIST WTC investigation or reports. But in August of this year, I began to read some of those reports. As I then watched several documentaries challenging the findings of the NIST investigation, I quickly became furious."

In other words, he's got no more insight into this than any other conspiracy theorist. Even though he used to work for a company that carried out the investigation, he had no involvement in it, no knowledge about it and no professional or academic qualifications in anything that related to it. But the TV show saw 'NIST' and thought it could grab the interest of people too brainwashed to look behind the facade of relevance. Welcome to their demographic.

I'm off to find out what Carl thinks about 9/11. Not only did Carl work in the NIST canteen between 2009 and 2011, but he also saw the 9/11 attacks on the TV, so I'm expecting he's going to be able to blow the lid off the whole thing.
DrCribbens wrote:
You said that I said it was 'normal' and I did not. You never said I said a 'synonym of normal' did you?

I can't stop laughing at that. That's genuinely funny. That's some next level pedantry right there.

So you're annoyed that I thought you said it was normal, but you're happy to concede that you said it was something that means the same as normal?

I'm tempted at this point to retract my statement and apologise because you're quite right, you didn't say it was 'normal', you only said it was something that means the same as 'normal'. As though that would make any fucking difference at all to anyone over 9 years of age.

However, I'm not going to because at this stage I'm really beginning to doubt whether you're bright enough to notice the sarcasm.

Oh, and by the way, please point out where I said that 'innocent, unarmed people' get killed 20 times a week. Again, before ranting, you need to not only read but--and I can't stress this enough--actually understand what you're ranting about.

And I hardly think that bemoaning the fact that 20 people every week get killed by cops in one country is emotional hysteria. 



...


Seriously. I'm still laughing.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats Do you know how synonyms work? You know that you don't actually need to use the word 'normal' in order to say that it's normal, right? Again, normal means it's expected. You actually used a stronger word than that, 'inevitable'. And I stand by what I said. I think it's awful that police shootings are seen as inevitable in the US.

Do you know how many people have been shot and killed by the police in the last 20 years in the UK? 49, and we know the name of each one of them because when it happens it's national headline news. In the US it's difficult to say what the numbers are because nobody even bothers to count them, but it's probably around 1000 per year. [source]

So is it normal? In America, yes it obviously is. It happens 20 times a week. In civilised countries, not so much.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats Well, you staggering fuckwit, you not only said it was normal, but you said it was normal in the very post where you were denying that you said it was normal.

'Normal' doesn't mean it isn't tragic or terrible. So you can say it as many times as you like to get it into my thick skull, but it's irrelevant to what I said.

So, just for the hard of understanding, I'll point it out where you said it was normal.

"It is extremely rare (but it does happen!)"
"And it also happens to Whites and other races,"
[and, hilariously, in the post where you ask me to show you where you said it's normal]
"But statistically is is INEVITABLE: it is absolutely going to happen sooner or later."

To recap, the definition of 'normal' is
(adjective) conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
(noun) the usual, typical, or expected state or condition.

I've made the relevant bit bold in case you're struggling to keep up. So when you said it was inevitable, that means you can expect it to happen. Hence my post.

Word to the wise: next time you're tempted to fly off the handle about someone's post, look up the more difficult two syllable words before you start typing.
DrCribbens wrote:
Explain to me again why Americans need access to automatic weapons?
DrCribbens wrote:
squrlz4ever According to the BBC "One US official told Reuters news agency the gunman had a history of psychological problems."
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats I'm not talking about racism. I just think it's awful that you think it's normal for cops (of any colour) to shoot unarmed people (of any colour).

I don't know what the law is in America (presumably it's the same one the army use--"did you see something move? Machine gun the fucker!") but in the UK the law is that it's OK to use appropriate force. This most definitely applies to the police as well. In other words, if a policeman is faced with an unarmed man, even if that man is threatening or attacking him, it's absolutely not ok for him to shoot him. The police use appropriate force to subdue him. Even if he's resisting arrest with violence.

That's how it's done in civilised countries.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats Wow, so in America it's acceptable for the cops to shoot unarmed people if they're 'behaving in a threatening way'?

What a fucked up country.
DrCribbens wrote:
I know someone--I should probably say that I know of them--who supports Everton football club. Everton play in blue. Their biggest rivals are Liverpool football club, who play in red. This person is a big Labour supporter. Labour's colour is red. This person, however, absolutely refuses to vote for Labour, because red is Liverpool's colour, and at every election, she votes for (blue) Conservative, even though she disagrees with all their policies, because they share the same colour with her football team.

I think an intelligence test to give you a license to vote is a great idea*. Certain people are already prevented from voting in the UK (the insane and criminals for instance, although apparently it's a contravention of criminals' human rights to prevent them). Why not stupid people as well?

Imagine being on trial in a highly technical fraud trial with a jury with a combined IQ in double figures. They wouldn't understand the trial or the complex and nuanced evidence and would therefore be unable to deliver a safe verdict. The idea is ridiculous.

Similarly, imagine a country where a statistically significant number of voters were unable to understand the complex and nuanced economic, sociological and political implications of their vote, where voters were swayed by the loudest and most brazen lies because they didn't have the intelligence to see through them, or voters cast their vote depending on the colour of their favourite sports team. What happens then? Brexit happens then. Trump happens.

Democracy is a stupid idea.





*The one in this thread was a transparent attempt to prevent voting on racial grounds, so I'm talking here about a genuine unbiased test for all voters.
DrCribbens wrote:
squrlz4ever I don't think I've ever been called a treasure before. It was a genuine question though. Is there a vetting procedure or do comments automatically go on the site once someone submits them? I can't think that would be a good way to run a website. I presume we'd be overrun by posts about Viagra and penis enlargements.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior Yeah, whatever. The fact of the matter is that this particular study is irrelevant with regards to 9/11.

Either you apply it to all widely held beliefs or to none of them. You don't get to pick and choose just to support your skewed world view. Let's face it, if I'd posted this in relation to people who believe the world is flat, you'd have dismissed it.
DrCribbens wrote:
Trying to use this to explain why people believe the official version of 9/11 is utterly wrong and shows a basic misunderstanding of the science. I know, I know, a flat-earther has misunderstood the science. I'm as shocked as you are.

A few points:

* The largest effect of this experiment showed that less than 1 in 3 people actually went along with the majority view (32% to be exact). People tend to forget that the result of the experiment actually showed that the most subjects actually didn't go along with the majority. How does that fit with 9/11 theories?

* The study is about conformity in general. To specifically use it for one particular belief - 9/11 for example - and not others - flat earth, moon hoax, young earth creationism to name three - is so absurd as to be laughable. If it's applicable to one of them it's applicable to all of them. 

* The applicability of the study to life today has been called into question. This was a range of studies carried out in 1950s America at the height of McCarthyism, for example, when non-comformity was very much frowned upon. 

* Further studies showed that if the subject was given 1 collaborator (who gave the correct answer before the subject was asked to give theirs) then conformity rates fell to around 5%. So, to make this analogous with MonkWarrior's assertion, the very fact that some people question the official 9/11 story would negate almost all effects of peer pressure conformity attributed to what you might call an Asch effect. In other words, the very studies that MonkWarrior is using show his assertion to be wrong.

Despite being here for so long, I don't really know how this website works. I've never submitted anything. When things get submitted, do they just get posted or is there any kind of vetting process? If there is, can we have less ridiculous uninformed bullshit please?

tl;dr -
This post is irrelevant and meaningless.
DrCribbens wrote:
Whereas Trump, of course, wasn't even noble in victory. Fuck knows what he would've been like if he'd lost.
DrCribbens wrote:
whosaidwhat I didn't think he was making fun of Christianity. He was making fun of the woman on the other end of the phone. By the time they've reached the age of 9, most people have developed a more mature sense of humour than ridiculing someone by repeating back whatever they say in a stupid voice.
DrCribbens wrote:
OK, so I don't know what a mega church prayer line is, and maybe it's deserving of ridicule, maybe not. I also don't know who any of the people in the video are, so I'm taking this whole thing at face value. Either way, I watched this all the way through and this was about as funny as having an ulcer. Since when does a smug prick ridiculing someone's beliefs = comedy? He didn't do anything clever or insightful. He just repeated back to her what she was saying to him, but in a slightly sillier voice, while the douchebags around him giggled like naughty schoolgirls. It was the intellectual equivalent of ringing someone up and asking if their refrigerator is running.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior Wait, did a moon hoax, flat-earth creationist just make a crack about deniers of science? Is that level of irony even legal?
DrCribbens wrote:
I stopped reading at 'sheeple'.
DrCribbens wrote:
cjeffblanchr Let me turn that on its head and ask you this: if you have doubts about the concept of evolution because of a perceived lack of evidence, what stronger evidence do you have for your belief in God?

NB. I'm talking about scientific evidence, not faith. The Bible doesn't count as evidence unless you're also going to count the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita and all the other holy books.

If there is some evidence for Theory A but it has gaps in it* and there is no evidence for Theory B, which is the one that's most likely to be correct?



* This is hypothetical. I'm not necessarily saying there are gaps in evolutionary evidence. It's not my speciality.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats You're right.

A creationist discussing evolution, a widely held theory with the support of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community: "Don't believe it, it's just a theory."

5Cats, discussing AGW, a widely held theory with the support of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community: "Don't believe it, it's just a theory."

I understand now how they're totally different. My mistake. Sorry about that.

Regarding gravity, we don't know everything about it. There are unanswered questions. But that doesn't mean that 'we have no clue'. Far from it. We have a theory--and we've had the theory for a century--with an enormous amount of supporting experimental evidence. 
DrCribbens wrote:
cjeffblanchr I replied to your earlier post before I noticed your further posts below it. My bad. However, I think my original reply stands for this latest post as well.

One thing I would reiterate: while I agree that evolution should not scientifically be regarded as a fact--because nothing should--the evidence in favour of evolution is utterly overwhelming. It is one of the three most evidentially supported theories in the history of human kind. 

To say that "change from one species into another is a guess--however much evidence one has for it" is wrong. Think about this statement with regards to a different, less emotive issue. Take an example from my previous post. Imagine I'd written "Thinking that whales are mammals is a guess--however much evidence one has for it." That would be nonsense, wouldn't it? Because when something has a huge amount of evidence in support of it, it's no longer a guess. It's knowledge based on evidence.

Once something has evidence, it stops making sense to disbelieve it. The greater and more compelling the evidence, the less sense it makes to disbelieve it. When a theory has the amount of supporting evidence that evolution does, it becomes irrational to disbelieve it. 

With regards to AGW, the evidence in favour of it is so overwhelming that it just doesn't make sense to disbelieve it.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats Please see my answer to cjeffblanchr, below, which answers your point as well.

Yes, 'evolution is a theory' is a dead horse and I'm sick of hearing it, but you're the one flogging the horse by making the same 'it's just a theory' argument for AGW. 

As an aside, saying that we have no clue how gravity works isn't true either. General Relativity explains it rather nicely, and, as I point out below, this is one of the most experimentally supported theories ever.
DrCribbens wrote:
cjeffblanchr Let me answer that by explaining how science works.

Imagine a scientist has a thought. He thinks that the earth might be round. It makes sense to him, but at this stage there's no evidence for his idea. Nobody's really looked into it before, or if they have they've not done any thorough research. This idea is a hypothesis. Could be right, could be wrong. People are probably going to argue it either way.

The scientist makes some predictions. He predicts that travelling in one direction for long enough will bring you back to where you started. He predicts that shadows in different places will measure differently at the same time of day. Etc. He does some experiments that show his predictions are correct. Some other people do some experiments and end up with results that further support his predictions, as well as other predictions that result from his hypothesis. At this point we have evidence that the hypothesis is correct. We can now regard it as a theory.

Now, this is the important part. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is for the theory--it will still be a theory. Even when there is so much evidence that no rational person would believe it to be false, it's still a theory. If any evidence is unearthed that disproves the theory it's either discarded or modified.

Take quantum mechanics as an example. This is one of the most verified theories in the history of science. The evidence is utterly overwhelming in support of this theory. No rational person would ever dispute it based on the evidence that we have. Really. It's like saying the earth is round. It's the same with Relativity. I might be wrong, but I can't think of any experiment ever that has disputed the veracity of the theory of Relativity. But it's still a theory.

You see, in science, you can never say anything is a fact. Imagine a scientist hypothesising that all whales are mammals. He can go and examine every whale he can find. He finds some that are mammals and his hypothesis can be regarded as a theory. Each one that turns out to be a mammal adds weight to his theory. But he'll never say it's a fact. How does he know that the next whale he examines isn't going to turn out to be a fish? He doesn't. He just knows that the evidence becomes stronger and stronger with each mammalian whale he finds. 

Such is the case with the theory of evolution by natural selection. Every piece of evidence we have supports the theory; so much so that no rational person would dispute it. But it's still just a theory.

The theory of climate change due to human intervention isn't at that stage yet. It doesn't have as much evidence as, say, relativity, quantum mechanics or evolution. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it.