the.crooked Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Well, you know I actually was an astronomical physics major for a year, and when you say we can't "see" electrons you clearly don't understand the science of how we study everything outside of the very small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. We don't need to see most things to know they are there. If you want to get nitpicky on the term "see" then I can just say "detect", and by using complex magnetic field mapping and energy field detection you can "see" electrons. So really that whole argument is pretty rediculous and once again based on a clear ignorance to the science you are trying to apt it to. Let me guess you came up with that theory when you were really high? Not at all. That's the writings of some of the better minds in philosophy of science. Even great physicist such as Einstein and Hawking would agree. May I suggest the following reading for you: Quine "Two dogmas of empiricism" Anything by Ian hacking about instrumentalism and its relationship to realism versus anti-realism Bas C van Frassen on Empirical Adequacy (it's nice to read him and Hacking responding to eachother I can name more. And would be more than willing to talk to you at length about these concepts. For the question of existential claims in emperical science: Ludwig Wittgenstein Rudolph Carnap anything really by the logical positivists. And I am not wrong about "seeing electrons" at all. U Mad? You used the word "detect." What we detect is what we assume will happen should an electron exist. But it's a simple fallacy of logic to assume that just because there is one outcome it is exclusive to one premise. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I aint the one calling the other ignorant here. No need for that now. I don't understand why it is so hard to believe I know what I am talking about. I am not saying you don't know your shit, I am just saying it is only one particular view of how science works. And let me ask this, if a competing theory of electricity were to come about in the next few decades, and it basically made the notion of electrons obsolete, would you be able to accept it? Or would you hold a somewhat dogmatic attachment to it? Paradigm shifts and the passing of one ontological commitment to another are never well received within the general public let alone the scientific community, but they happen. And they necessarily always will. It is how science functions. Science works because it's perpetual failures to always predict new evidence is matched by our ability to revise theory and even drop some theory if it deems necessary for the progress of science to continue. One day, the theories we have now, will be nothing more than the "ether" of the early 20th century. But yo, don't get mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 My feelings are abortions should be legal, stem cells should be used, and they should even allow and pay for late term abortions where there is a high risk of the parent dying in childbirth. I think that above all the mothers life should be considered, and not become part of an external moral debate. fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouMad.GIF Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I'm not mad, but don't say "I don't believe in electrons because I can't see them" and expect me not to think it's airheaded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I should think my argument was quite a bit more nuanced than reducing it to "because we can't see them." My statement in that regard was about the way we treat expiremental procedure and its results. There has been and will always be a great deal of debate about what constitutes verifiable empirical data, and whether or not direct or indirect observation can act as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyPillfingers Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 basically, i think trannys are disgusting and that we should be able to legally shoot them on sight. anyone agree? we should also be able to shoot guys who wear angel wings, that is severely severely against the basic laws of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNH.Sunk Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Maybe not shoot them, that's basically against basic 'laws of life'. But yeah, some guest came to talk about transgenders in my anthropology class and I just left. The pictures of pregnant 'men' were making me gag. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 50million Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 i dont think they should have segregated bathrooms for trannys. maybe a women, men, and AIDS bathroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 even that idea is problematic. AIDS can be controlled. Exposing those who have it under control to those who potentially don't by virtue as to how you categorize the bathrooms does just as much damage as if you didn't have the last category. Bathrooms shouldn't really be differentiated at all. What basis do we have for this perpetual practice? Nothing but prudish puritanical culture. You shit you shit. You piss you piss. If you can tell me about when you are about to go shit, you can shit in the same receptacle as me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@ndomH3ro Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Transgender should have the rights of the gender that they associate with. I think that its fair that they should also not be prejudice against because they choose to be associated with another gender other then that they were born with. everyone has a right to do what makes them happy as long as it is not hurtful or immoral. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNH.Sunk Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 crooked, what the fuck are you talking about? the differentiation is that men waste in the men's room. and women do it in their room. simple. less you want to live like our primal cousins out in the jungle, leave human society and join the animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 lulz, civilized folk versus them damned heathens? I went to a school where there were unisex bathrooms. It isn't a big deal. People in this country are just stuck up as fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNH.Sunk Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Yeah, I guess? Too bad society doesn't just homogenize everyone into one category... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouMad.GIF Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Dude there's plenty of single sex bathrooms in Europe It's not like America is the only place where they exist... In fact I would say that regions are predominantly have uni sex bathrooms are poorer countries where having 2 bathrooms are not economical. It's just an added privacy benefit associated with a higher standard of living. I don't see anything sexist about not wanting to take a fat shit in the same room as my date, or not wanting my daughter to have to use the bathroom with any old guy taking a piss. Also to keep guys from doing cocaine in the stalls in the womens room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.