Brocat wrote:Kind of like the condescending, intellectually vacant manner in which you responded to the OP? Once again, evidence as to how the theory is fraudulent would be nice.
I understand that you have written an insightful ebook on teaching men how to control their lives, that this forum is full of people who are not as knowledgeable as you on the subject, and that might give you some sense of superiority over them,
this is called, "projection."
this is you
attempting to project your insecurities
onto me--a common chick pastime.
obviously, you're too fucking stupid to read
. otherwise, you would've been able to figure out by now that your foolish pride is exactly what we expose on a daily basis--the smug sense of superiority derived from Social Authority.
this is the reason why intellectual toddlers like you, tragically nurse on the tits of hipsters your whole life. you're desperately searching for social approval, giving handjobs to those who rule your behavior by the flick of an internet meme.
but you're not a fucking scientist
is a 'scientist.'
like most cluetards, you erroneously assume that only guys wearing white lab coats on TV qualify as 'scientists.' this proves you have no fucking grasp of what constitutes 'science.'
Science is a tool
; it's a rake. it's a screwdriver. it's a car. it's a book. it's essentially a MEANS
to an end. it has absolutely NO POWER to do anything on its own; it can't do your thinking for you. it can't fix your retard logic. it can't even buy you a cup of common sense.
and a TOOL is only as competent as its user
; e.g., we're both using the same tools called "words." but your use of these tools is obviously less effective than mine.
through your limited education, you've made Science into a living entity--a Bro
. and right now, it's Bro'ing you the fuck out.
what you fail to realize is that everybody
constructs informal hypotheses every single time they decide to try out something new. and everybody gathers 'data.' and everybody creates 'experiments.' and everybody 'draws' conclusions based on those experiments.
some are more formal than others about it. some are careful. some are sloppy. some focus on accuracy. others focus on results. some make progress. others contribute to failnation. but nobody at any point in their lives ever stops
being a scientist. a 'scientist' is really a misnomer; if you have a tool and you're using it, you qualify as a scientist. (now, whether or not you're a competent
scientist is another issue).
but in effect, everyone has their own 'scientific method' and is able to draw a 'scientific' conclusion. in fact, some of the most informal of 'scientists' are the brightest people on the planet that you'll never hear of because they're not interested in white lab coat faggotry like many naive sciencetards who believe that sticking a picture of Einstein on the back of their minivans suddenly equates to intellectual proficiency.
granted most people make very poor scientists because their standards are too inaccurate or unstable and their methods are sloppy or inefficient. but this doesn't automatically discount their capacity to arrive at a sensible conclusion, given the proper amount of guidance (aka an education).
and you should probably deflate that ego of yours just a little bit,
because the evolutionary biologists, and all the other scientists in the world,
in your authority fallacy, you forgot to reference Colonel Sanders, Burger King and Aunt Jemima--the holy trinity of Social Authority.
are working their asses off night and day to help people better understand the workings of our world and universe.
they're not doing it out of some altruistic sense of compassion for the less fortunate. like all people, they have a self-serving agenda in mind.
and like most self-serving people, you're too intellectually dishonest to even acknowledge that.
So, with all due respect, pipe the fuck down Sally.
with no respect whatsoever, please suck