Which part of science is most important to you?

[Deluge]

I'm starting to think that illegal immigration science is what's most important to the cult - I mean, those heathens fight like hell for illegal immigraton, and really, they just get off on all things international that help diminish the US. 

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, Deluge said:

I'm starting to think that illegal immigration science is what's most important to the cult - I mean, those heathens fight like hell for illegal immigraton, and really, they just get off on all things international that help diminish the US. 

I'm not sure it's science that's driving that.

[Deluge]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm not sure it's science that's driving that.

It's actually woke activism. 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It's actually woke activism. 

That sounds a lot more plausible  

[Deluge]

On 5/25/2026 at 12:38 AM, CdnFox said:

That sounds a lot more plausible  

But you have to admit that many leftoids, if not all of them, think immigration should be an area of science.

I may have to start another poll...

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Deluge said:

But you have to admit that many leftoids, if not all of them, think immigration should be an area of science.

I may have to start another poll...

Be honest I find that they pick and choose between science and emotion (claiming compassion) Willy-nilly and both argue that it should and absolutely should not be a decision driven by evidence

In other words they will argue that regardless of the facts we should be compassionate. And if somebody points out there being too compassionate or that their compassion is costing money the claim that the science proves immigration is beneficial. When you point out that the science doesn't prove that and indicates that excessive immigration is extremely harmful then they fall back on the compassion argument

So it is both scientific  and not scientific and compassion and not compassion all at the same time. 

As with most things the left wing argument sounds more like an exercise in Schrodinger's cat thought experiments then reality, which is appropriate for a bunch of pussies  

Edited May 29 by CdnFox

[Deluge]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Be honest I find that they pick and choose between science and emotion (claiming compassion) Willy-nilly and both argue that it should and absolutely should not be a decision driven by evidence

In other words they will argue that regardless of the facts we should be compassionate. And if somebody points out there being too compassionate or that their compassion is costing money the claim that the science proves immigration is beneficial. When you point out that the science doesn't prove that and indicates that excessive immigration is extremely harmful then they fall back on the compassion argument

So it is both scientific  and not scientific and compassion and not compassion all at the same time. 

As with most things the left wing argument sounds more like an exercise in Schrodinger's cat thought experiments then reality, which is appropriate for a bunch of pussies  

So it's compassion first, then beat you over the head with "science" if you don't comply in the name of compassion. 

I think that pretty much sums things up. 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Deluge said:

So it's compassion first, then beat you over the head with "science" if you don't comply in the name of compassion. 

I think that pretty much sums things up. 

Unless they think the science says what they want. Then they start with that and claim you're a subhuman for arguing and they shouldn't have to listen.  Or if they think they can get away with lying and claim it does when it doesn't

IF later on someone shows the science actually disproves them (as is often the case) then they fall back on compassion. 

IF that doesn't work they pretend you were arguing about something else and then argue with that. If that doesn't' work they say this is all so petty and why are we even talking about this in the first place. 

[Deluge]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Unless they think the science says what they want. Then they start with that and claim you're a subhuman for arguing and they shouldn't have to listen.  Or if they think they can get away with lying and claim it does when it doesn't

IF later on someone shows the science actually disproves them (as is often the case) then they fall back on compassion. 

IF that doesn't work they pretend you were arguing about something else and then argue with that. If that doesn't' work they say this is all so petty and why are we even talking about this in the first place. 

Often times they don't even bother with talk of science or compassion and simply mumble some stupid shit about MAGA is if that is all it takes to win the argument. The other chick in that LA mayoral debate tried that after Pratt mopped the floor with both them. It didn't land too well. lol

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Often times they don't even bother with talk of science or compassion and simply mumble some stupid shit about MAGA is if that is all it takes to win the argument. The other chick in that LA mayoral debate tried that after Pratt mopped the floor with both them. It didn't land too well. lol

Well at the end of the day the ultimate aim is always to suggest you are sub human.  That way they don't have to even consider your argument.  Why would we consider the arguments of sub humans? We can just dismiss it. 

So sure, simply calling their opponents maga or nazis or facists or what have you works just fine for that.  " I demand that 1+1 is 157357 and i don't have to explain that to you because you're a nazi"

[Deluge]

On 5/30/2026 at 1:57 PM, CdnFox said:

Well at the end of the day the ultimate aim is always to suggest you are sub human.  That way they don't have to even consider your argument.  Why would we consider the arguments of sub humans? We can just dismiss it. 

So sure, simply calling their opponents maga or nazis or facists or what have you works just fine for that.  " I demand that 1+1 is 157357 and i don't have to explain that to you because you're a nazi"

This is also true. Which helps explain why they use a "barrage" approach in their messaging as opposed to logic and reasoning. 

What's unfortunate is that too many people fall under their continuous bullshit and end up voting for the Jesus trashing psychopath. 

[Deluge]

Below is AI's take on how leftoids view science, and it more or less reflects the "All of the above" choice on this poll: 

According to the political left, science is an evolving, evidence-based process that serves as an essential tool for driving social progress, protecting the environment, and informing equitable public policy. In this view, scientific consensus is seen as the most reliable authority for solving systemic challenges like climate change and public health crises. [1, 2, 3]

The progressive perspective on science can be broken down into a few core tenets:

• Evidence-Based Policy: The left strongly advocates that public legislation—ranging from environmental regulations to social safety nets—should be guided by empirical data and scientific consensus rather than ideology. [1, 2]
• A Tool for Equality: Many progressives view the scientific ethos (rationality, impartiality, fairness) as a natural ally to their values. They believe scientific inquiry, when executed without bias, dismantles outdated hierarchies and promotes the mutual benefit of all members of society. [1]
• Systemic Approach: The left often approaches science as a holistic, interconnected discipline, particularly in environmentalism, where the focus is placed on the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and public health. [1, 2, 3]

However, defining science from this perspective can also lead to intense ideological debates. Critics often point out that the left can be susceptible to scientism—the belief that science is the ultimate or only arbiter of truth. Conversely, some voices on the left critique mainstream scientific institutions as being compromised by corporate or capitalist incentives. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Meanwhile, conservative critics and some centrist observers have argued that the modern left sometimes allows social justice narratives to influence their view of empirical data—particularly when it comes to biological taboos or "feel-good" fallacies regarding things like organic agriculture or nuclear energy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]