Sociopath Community

TL;DR, it's the same old long-winded storytime by an offended SJW who wants to cherry pick sources and is annoyeed if he can't. I'll wait for someone else to respond.

In the meantime:

Give me an example of how your methodology can address a claim that objects can move faster than the speed of light based on these studies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2007/2007.07835.pdf

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

No matter how much you try to counter-cite papers unless you're an expert you will have no way to show which methodology is correct, so you will be required to rely on the scientific consensus and what the experts say which in this case is the recognition that there is no good evidence to prove that objects can move faster than the speed of light. It's not a theoretical but a practical limitation.

If I can use a methodology to arrive at an objectively wrong conclusion then it is not a good standard for evaluating evidence which is why I'm not going further with this conversation before we have addressed this issue in a way that we both agree Inquirer.

Turncoat said: 

dude's trolling as far as bragging about speaking seven languages though, so I don't know how much luck you're going to have.

English, Mandarin Chinese, Polish, German, French, Spanish, Italian. I am flattered that you think it would imply I am so intelligent if I learned 7 languages that it would be impossible for you to fathom it be true. I have also translated legal documents for Washington in English, so uess whose english is better grammatically.

StillPork said: 

If I can use a methodology to arrive at an objectively wrong conclusion then it is not a good standard for evaluating evidence

It still shows where they are coming from, which gives further room to deconstruct it. If the sources are bad that can be addressed through poking at said sources, like when a teacher corrects your reports or term papers in high school. Even Spatial Mind with his wackadoo theories at least used to have a backing of sources before the "unenlightened masses" have him ad hom his opponents into oblivion, and I have learned much from what was initially taken as nonsense thanks to said sources working as a jumping point for me to 'find out more'. 

If someone sits there spouting bad sources it still invites discussion, while if someone's just demanding others do all the heavy lifting all you're going to see is a one-sided nonreciprocal exchange. "Keep trying" is not a good response, it's just an effective one. 

which is why I'm not going further with this conversation before we have addressed this issue in a way that we both agree Inquirer.

Keep trying Stormfag, he was calling you on this shit before I got bored and began doing the same. 

You continue to not address points, so we might as well just be talking to ourselves. At least Kestrel tried before running the fuck away. 

StillPork said: 

Turncoat said: 

dude's trolling as far as bragging about speaking seven languages though, so I don't know how much luck you're going to have.

English, Mandarin Chinese, Polish, German, French, Spanish, Italian. I am flattered that you think it would imply I am so intelligent if I learned 7 languages that it would be impossible for you to fathom it be true. I have also translated legal documents for Washington in English, so uess whose english is better grammatically.

Shh, let the adults do the talking. I tried my best to reason with you but it's hopeless since you can't read.

StillPork said: 

Shh, let the adults do the talking. I tried my best to reason with you but it's hopeless since you can't read.

Perhaps I'll let you enjoy sitting in silence for a while then. 

How can anyone be thrown into such a deep SJW rage over being asked to justify teir bold-ass assertions without any basis in reality. At least Inquirer responded with sources which I disagreed with due to a more fundamental epistemological questions but nevertheless which moved the conversation forward and which now lead to us defining the basis for this discussion, while your reaction was to throw an SJW rage-tantrum over not having your boundaries be respected or w/e. If you were even half the man that Inquirer is you would be willing to compromise, reason and concede a few of the minor points which clearly showed you were factually incorrect in your assertions, feel free go ahead and rage some more I'll just ignore you and discuss with someone reasonable like Inquirer you should learn from him.

You're giving me silent treatment now? Lmfao.

StillPork said: 

You're giving me silent treatment now? Lmfao.

Looking at who's online would show that, by dismissing talking to me, this topic would sit in silence for the meantime. Otherwise I thought you said you were done with me?

Why are you still responding to me (while continuing to not actually participate) if you claimed to be done? 

Are you still talking to me, even though you said you would finally be quiet? If the first word that comes out of your mouth isn't a sign of reciprociality and willingness to compromise I have no interest in it.