SkyHigh

Putting aside your constant obsession with queer folk, which is obviously underlining your inability to admit the truth about your sexual perclivities and the fact you keep referring to me as a "woketard" without ever being to produce even one post of mine to support that . Let's talk about science Science is the process not the result. Science doesn't make truth claims. Science is provisional, meaning it is constantly changing, therefore the only way to advance Science is to assume we are wrong about everything and continue to use the scientific method to improve our understanding of reality But since you can't stop thinking about trans people let's discuss the actual scientific claims made by science on the topic ( note that other than this, the only time I've commented on the trans issue is my concerns over what public health care covers) Simple question. Yes or No , do you accept that not ALL people are born either XX or XY? Money saus you won't answer and instead go on some unhinged rant to mask the fact that chicks with dïcks turn you on, but maybe you'll surprise me

This demonstrates your profound misunderstanding of what science is. The scientific method IS the only important thing. Science does NOT make truth claims. All science is provisional, science uses models and the entirety of the scientific community would admit that NO models are right some are just useful. Science doesn't prove anything (only mathematics provide proof) , in fact science does the complete opposite, it endeavors to disprove the existing models (theories) and this is how they advance understanding of reality. One only needs to look at history to find a cornucopia of things top minds " knew" to be true that have been since debunked and we don't even have to go that far back to see changes in fundamental aspects of the universe. A hundred years ago we thought the atom was the smallest thing in the cosmos. So by continuing to use the scientific method which in a nut shell is as follows Observation , hypothesis , experiment, conclusion Now I understand that this is all an elementary level science lesson but I figure thats about all you'll understand Here is a perfect example. I spoke about air quality using some those aforementioned simple concepts even you should understand. Observation : people noticed the quality of the air in major cities was getting worse. They also observed that all manner of things including plastics and other industrial waste were being burned by industries Hypothesis: they hypothesized that there was not only a correlation between the toxic particles released by industrial smoke stacks but a direct causation Experiment: studies were done, regulations put in place both by private and public interests to stop the burning of toxic industrial waste Conclusion : A large reduction in smog in major cities. The idea that i needed to link to various studies ( that we both know you couldn't read anyway) to show how the science worked here, again just shows do don't understand science. Further more the claim I made as it related to climate change, was not an end of the world scenario I was just looking for anyone of you mørons to admit something so basic as Yes we saw a problem with the climat(smog in big cities) found the cause (man made) and fixed it. Agree or Disagree??? I know you have difficulty with reading comprehension and are in general contrarian and argumentative in nature, but in this instance it's proving challenging for me to differentiate between your ignorance or your bad faith. I used the term "social construct" because that's what the people that advocate for that use and then only in the context to show why it is NOT science. So your whole tangent was arguing for something that ,i clearly stated i didn't agree with particularly aa it pertains to science as if it wasn't already my point whilst acting like a dīck . Again though all I feel is pitty for someone that has nothing else in their life but going off at anonymous people from behind a keyboard. As it related to "gender," my only scientific claim was Not every human is born XX or XY Agree or Disagree??? Those were two of the three questions that as of yet nobody has addressed. The third was simply Do you accept evolution by natural selection as the reason for the diversity of life. Agree or Disagree??? I await your responses with bated breath. I almost said informed or educated or scientific response but realized i would never breath again

Read my original post and my 3 scientific claims, debunk if you can

I clearly answered that question when i said the only important part of science is the methodology that produces objective and reliable results and yes i didn't answer your poll because there was no science in it. Again all you have is political rhetoric, you agreed on almost every point i made, so if I'm a leftiod so are you Now either debunk the 3 scientific statements i made using the scientific method or just admit you don't care about the science and just want to spout your political nonsense

Fan club? Oh son, I just asked what freedoms Why you dancing?

As I predicted straight to the political rhetoric, no direct response to the 3 objective scientific statements I asked you if you accept 1 climate science, smog is not produced by nature nor were the chemicals that corporations were dumping in water sources. We , using the scientific method realized this and corrected it. I didn't go off on any end of the world nonsense, your response was something about people talking to trees. You don't understand science 2 So you accept that the vast majority of people are born either XX or XY but not all? because nothing else you said had any more to do with science than gender or lgbt studies, but based solely on your subjective opinion about how the world is/was/or should be, informed completely from your partisan beliefs, because You don't understand science. 3 you completely ignored my question about the diversity of species and side stepped that your purported beliefs in Christ, in relation to your actions, don't comport with teaching of Jesus, by asking me how my prayers to a God I don't believe in are going, because you don't understand science or faith The rest of your dribble was talking about the opinions of "lefties" that for the most part I don't agree with. The only thing i said that was remotely political was I don't think my taxes should pay for boob jobs. I did throw in a couple of jabs against you but that's just because you are a truly unpleasant person. You don't understand what science is a at basic level, that's why in a stream You started, with science in the title, you have said NOTHING that any reasonable person would qualify as science, by any definition of the word. You spent more time arguing against some non-existent adversary on points you admitted we agreed weren't science, because you not only don't understand science you have no interest in it, because All you have is political opinions feed to you by partisan hacks. Prove me wrong, answer my three distinct, circumspect non politicized questions (smog, XX/XY divergences and évolution) without resorting to your political opinions or spamming Wikipedia. Ball is in your court but you'll probably just throw it out of bounds, or hopefully, you'll come to terms with your ignorance realize you're outmatched and just give me back the ball, go home and learn some science. Then my prayers truly would be answered.

Ok, so most of your examples wouldn't even qualify as science, forget about "important science". All science is provisional, meaning it can always change, so the Only important part of science is the methodology used to provide reliable and objective results 1 Gender studies, gender is a social construct, the complete opposite of Objective, 2 LGBT studies, sexual orientation is a preference much like taste in music therefore completely Subjective. 3 Critical race theory which is more about history and it's effect on society today, we know history is subjective, see the old adage "history is written by the winners" and judging the ramifications on the average person today is not exactly mesurable or quantifiable which are pretty important in the scientific method. These are social studies (it's in the name) and only taught at the University level. Calling them science, is like the guy with a PhD in art history insisting he be called Dr. Reproductive? If you think that sexual reproduction is political, the person that taught you the birds and bees is even dumber than you Climate change is a science, let's start with that one and see if you accept real science I will use the word accept because every point I will address represents the consensus of actual scientists. Though my suspicion is you'll resort to back to partisan nonsense Do you accept that mass industrialization has had negative effects on the environment, some of which were addressed by both the government and the private sector using the scientific method???? For example, I grew up in Toronto in the 80s where smog was very prevalent, today the air quality (same for water) has improved. Do you accept that the diversity of species on earth is the result of evolution by natural selection??? You often speak about being religious, curious if you're a young earth creationist(because you have proven yourself to be that out of touch with reality)? On a side note I find it funny that, I an atheist (possibly even an anti theist when it comes to Christianity) actually lives my life more according to the teachings of Jesus than you even pretend to Do you accept that Not ALL human beings are born with Either XX or XY chromosomes??? I'm not talking about trans rights, my question is only about biology. On a side note the only thing that concerns me with trans people is what treatments are covered under health care, my taxes should never pay for cosmetic surgeries. I look forward to your answers!

Yet when asked a direct question you chose to respond to a flippant comment. Seems to me you're just talking out your ass

What freedoms do you think we lack as Canadians?

The more important metic when evaluating the strength of an economy, isn't GDP per capita but in the relation between GDP and national debt and Canada's is better As a real world example, imagine person A makes 65 thousand dollars yearly ("GDP") and has monthly expenses("dept") mortgage, car payments ect. totaling 15 hundred dollars and person B makes 100 thousand dollars a year has 45 hundred dollars in monthly expenses . Person B has a higher income ("GDP") yet at the end of the year person A will in reality have more money in the bank. This is basic economics

As a politician I hated him (I lived in his riding for years) but I've had the opportunity to speak with him in person (after he left the bloc) and as a man he couldn't be more personable or charming

You were speaking of the bilingualism of certain Quebec politicians. I added one that I have spoken with personally, on more than one occasion. You then told me i was wrong and i asked what you based that opinion on, you provided zero justification and simply changed the topic. Facts don't care about feelings so either support your assertions with evidence, maybe just don't respond. This is not the first time you do this.

Good for you 1. I said almost entirely, of course he had an accent 2. Is English is better than Trump. 3. I was born in 1980, what's your point? I assume you met the man yourself et bien sûr vous êtes complètement bilingue, right? Or are you just talking out your ass? I was always more partial to Neil Young myself

Chrétien was completely bilingual. The whole "little guy from Shawinigan" was an act. In private that thick French accent disappeared almost entirely.

Nope, I don't think there are any God given rights. Im an atheist , also I don't think anyone outside of properly trained peace officers, hunters and farmers that may need to protect their livelyhood from wild animals (Im sure there are other isolated instances im ignorant to as well) should be allowed to be in possession of a fire arm unless at a designated, regulated shooting range That was Mr. Kirks opinion and if you follow his logic it would go something like this I want to take a moment here to reiterate, that though I didn't agree with most of what he said, any expression of violence towards someone expressing his views has no place in society and should be an issue that rises and lives above any form of partisanship, it was a tragedy period. I think it's also important to reflect on what may perpetuate such incidents and Mr. Kirk willingly fan flames. AGAIN he didn't deserve any harm no less death, but HIS words on the matter do seem relevant Premise 1: God has ordained all things according to his will Premise 2: GODs will granted Americans the right to own guns Premise 2: Many people die needlessly and violently because of that right Premise 3: Those deaths are "worth it" to uphold that right Premise 4: Everything is part of God's Plan *we are of course speaking about the tri-omni Christian god as defined by Mr.Kirk himself Conclusion : GOD has ordained that people will die needlessly Unfortunately in this case it was Mr. Kirk. I don't think it's worth it . GOD apparently does. Do you?

Of course not dîpshit, I was being facetious to show how ridiculous your analogy was. Again the intended purpose of swimming pools is not to kill things, it is with guns Add to that the fact that there are regulations governing pools, you must have a fence around the pool to prevent people from accidentally fall in and in some cases you're required to have a cover for the pool. Not to mention most kids take swimming lessons and any responsible pool owner would make sure anyone using their pool had the requisite swimming ability and if they didn't there are flotation devices to ensure safety. 46'000 gun deaths vs. 350 pool drownings, not to mention it's the leading cause of child deaths So again a ridiculous analogy

Except the right to operate a motor vehicle you must first take classes to learn how, then you are tested to make sure you have the mental and physical abilities to conduct yourself safely on the road and even minor infractions can result in fines, the loss of the privilege and even incarceration. Oh ya, that and the primary use of automobiles is not to kill things

Swimming pool control now. Swimming pools aren't made to kill, gus are The funniest part is you actually thought that was a valid analogy

You're right he said it was "worth it" much worse

Turning Point USA CEO and co-founder Charlie Kirk said of gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." You're right I said acceptable, he said " worth it" that even worse, in fact his argument that fire arm possession is a "God given right" (notice the quotations) logically entails that his assassination was God ordained I'm an atheist and don't believe in violence so i disagree with this philosophy, but that was his argument Now you know you were wrong right?

Right, those swimming pool assassinations and all those multiple school drownings are way out of control. What a ridiculous analogy

Quoting him means I think he deserves to be shot? That asinine

I said nothing of the sort. Learn to read

I personally condemn any political violence. Particularly when based solely on someone simply exercising their right to free speech whether or not I agree with their opinion. That being said, Kirks stated opinion on was gun control was that some gun deaths were acceptable to protect the right to bear arms So, live by the sword and so on Hopefully this will be a catalyst for those on the right to begin to discuss and eventually implement the common sense gun control that most Americans support, though i am doubtful

Definitely fair Im simply commenting on the irony of someone talking smack about a people that happens to include the person he calls his Savior.