"People did science wrong therefore science bad"
"People found results I didn't like therefore science bad"
"People studied thing I didn't like therefore science bad"
"Some nerd doesn't leave his room therefore science bad"
"Everything was better before the internet"
No, the trends of decline started much sooner. The Distributist had much better and nuanced arguments *sigh*
"People were happier in the past. Science bad."
"How do I know? Science of course"
The woke come from Neo-marxists, the people who rejected Marx's materialism. Stop calling them scientific or materialist or liberals you fucking retards!!!
Sitch, Adam and Sargon never played SOMA
🔻
@Spaghettimon Base it on deez nuts
@cowanon
He's constantly saying that he isn't doing that however in my opinion he basically is and is using an argument akin to "Science can't study the human soul".
I think really the problem is the politicisation of the term science. Science is just supposed to be a way for autistic men to earn money and fame by figuring out ways to exploit various phenomenon that occur in nature.
But its since become characterised as a magical power and alternative to religion by midwits. That are then exploited by other midwits as a way to push retarded agendas (eugenics by right, increased taxes by left)
Science is basically like finding really obscure speed running strategies but for real life.
"Good heavens! By spinning a magnetic iron rod inside a wire coil and attaching that to a thin metal filament inside glass tube I'm able to generate light to read my books much quicker and safer than lighting a candle or oil lamp. Huzzah!
Golly good! I'm going to sell this to a local factory owner so I can afford to pay a prostitute to dress up like a bunny rabbit!"
@ArdanianRight @Publius The problem is that it's easily exploitable and too ambitious. We do not know enough about the human genome and if we were to fuck up we would end up with generations of cripples and retards. Also people imagine things like hunting down and killing sick people or genociding entire ethnicities which are things that can definitely happen if some maniac gets their hands on power. There's also a question of what traits are good.
However I agree that conscious promotion of good traits and voluntary sterilization of people who carry severe genetic illnesses are things we should do.
We already partially do, we give mothers the option to abort disabled fetuses and most people select for healthy looking individuals when choosing a mate. Sadly the conversation is too bogged down in moral faggotry.
There is this rule which stays something like «Any measure stops being a good measure when it becomes a target». Knowing how every retard wants to maximize numbers mindlessly, I am very much afraid of what could be of human genetics if/when they inevitably apply the same thought-process to gene-editing. That's enough reason to be against it.
@kerosene
Definitely. Your body has limited resources and therefore if you push a trait too much it will naturally start compensating for and we have absolutely no clue how that would go.
@ArdanianRight @Publius
Imagine listening to Sargoy in the current year.
Treating science as a monolith is part of the problem. It's a human endeavor with some rules for attempted self-correction but it's just as corruptible as, say, FIFA rules or an HR Company.
For me, I just really hate the "I fucking love science" crowd. I had to write on the history of peer review and came across things like Retraction Watch where you can watch the science sausage being made. ProTip: It ain't pretty.
Highly recommended to deluded optimists and "peer reviewed" paper fans.
retractionwatch.com/
@nobullyplz
Yeah, peer review means nothing. It's basically "Your paper contains grammatically correct sentences".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEnY690BS1g