Your sovereign rights being flushed down the toilet by our politicians

[Scuba_Steve]

What's so great about this peer reviewed stuff???
Workmate the other day pointed out a recent peer reviewed claim which was recently shown to be total shit, so much so the guy who wrote it has admitted he "made it up with no evidence" yet it was peer reviewed & published as "correct"... Apparently this isn't the 1st or only time it's happened either
I'll have to ask the workmate what/who it was I didn't pay too much attention as it was more his interest than mine.

And in a slightly related but different note; maybee those "peer reviewed" articles aren't so peer reviewed afterall
Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.

[Katman]

That or I have better things to do than be indoctrinated.

I'm sticking with the 'too frightened' option.

[mashman]

And there it is; the evasion of my main point. You guys just make it too easy sometimes.

No, you keep trying to frame the debate and when that fails because someone passes you something for your consideration, you dismiss it by moving the goalposts.

So, just to clear it up, unless there is evidence to your satisfaction i.e. standard, you simply will not watch or read any material put before you?

[bogan]

What's so great about this peer reviewed stuff???
Workmate the other day pointed out a recent peer reviewed claim which was recently shown to be total shit, so much so the guy who wrote it has admitted he "made it up with no evidence" yet it was peer reviewed & published as "correct"... Apparently this isn't the 1st or only time it's happened either
I'll have to ask the workmate what/who it was I didn't pay too much attention as it was more his interest than mine.

And in a slightly related but different note; maybee those "peer reviewed" articles aren't so peer reviewed afterall
Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.

How was it shown to be total shit?

Did somebody watch a youtube about the topic? Or was it peer reviewed (the process continues after publication you know)

[bogan]

I'm sticking with the 'too frightened' option.

Whatever helps your confirmation bias I guess.

So, just to clear it up, unless there is evidence to your satisfaction i.e. standard, you simply will not watch or read any material put before you?

Not just to my standard, to the scientific standard. That's for when it is stated as proven fact, or requires expert analysis. If the evidence is self evident from the material, ie, not accompanied by opinionated drivel, then I shall watch or read it.

[mashman]

(the process continues after publication you know)

That is a truly scarey thing.

[Katman]

If the evidence is self evident from the material, ie, not accompanied by opinionated drivel, then I shall watch or read it.

Bullshit.

Your mind is as closed as Ed's.

[mashman]

Not just to my standard, to the scientific standard. That's for when it is stated as proven fact, or requires expert analysis. If the evidence is self evident from the material, ie, not accompanied by opinionated drivel, then I shall watch or read it.

So you've read all of the peer reviewed documentation on the 9/11 truth site then?

[bogan]

That is a truly scarey thing.

In what way?

Bullshit.

Your mind is as closed as Ed's.

Then post some and prove it.

So you've read all of the peer reviewed documentation on the 9/11 truth site then?

I'm not sure, post me some links of ones you think I may have missed...

[flyingcrocodile46]

So you still have nothing then. Thought so.

To expand on that in the original context. The idea that you form a conclusion (or are given one) then go look for the evidence until you are convinced of its veracity is most unscientific. It shows massive bias and close-mindedness. That is why I back my conclusions up with evidence along with the conclusion; so debates of substance can be had. That is why the scientific community places so much importance on peer reviewed articles. And that is why I'm right so often

You are spouting self serving shit again. You truly are full of it.

You have repeatedly asked for three (or was it 4) examples of how people are enslaved to the govt. The mere act of asking for more than one example is both evidence of your bias against accepting such examples and an involuntary admission that you know it to be true.

Only one example is needed to demonstrate the truth. Yet you insist on three. According to that sort of disingenuous twaddle, you would deny that a 19th century African American slave was a slave because he couldn't articulate more than "cause massa says so".

Put simply, your self deception and dishonesty is so overwhelming that your bias demands three examples because you can think of two yourself.


This blatantly dishonest approach to debating discourages me from wasting any time with argumentative shitheads like you.

[Katman]

In what way?



Then post some and prove it.



I'm not sure, post me some links of ones you think I may have missed...

You sound like you suffer from Perpetual Infant Syndrome.

Do you still need someone to wipe your arse?

[bogan]

You are spouting self serving shit again. You truly are full of it.

You have repeatedly asked for three (or was it 4) examples of how people are enslaved to the govt. The mere act of asking for more than one example is both evidence of your bias against accepting such examples and an involuntary admission that you know it to be true.

Only one example is needed to demonstrate the truth. Yet you insist on three. According to that sort of disingenuous twaddle, you would deny that a 19th century African American slave was a slave because he couldn't articulate more than "cause massa says so".

Put simply, your bias demands three examples because you can think of two yourself.


This blatantly dishonest approach to debating discourages me from wasting any time with argumentative shitheads like you.

Just three. If you like you can supply just one to help out... The idea of three was to save time as I expected many would not be correct examples anyway. In fact, taking your points on board, you supply one robust example of slavery and we will discuss that. Happy?

You sound like you suffer from Perpetual Infant Syndrome.

Do you still need someone to wipe your arse?

Ahh insults and nothing more, I like these because they show a sure sign I have bested you in the debate topic.

I'll give you some tips for next time. It was you initial challenge that went wrong, as it still hinged on your evidence, what you needed to find was a claim I made which was not related to the debunking of another's claim; a standalone one. You would have stood a much better chance at showing me not backing myself that way.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Disingenuous goal post constructs = full of shit. No matter how fast you backpedal. Fucking strawman

[Woodman]

You are spouting self serving shit again. You truly are full of it.

You have repeatedly asked for three (or was it 4) examples of how people are enslaved to the govt. The mere act of asking for more than one example is both evidence of your bias against accepting such examples and an involuntary admission that you know it to be true.

At least he doesn't just make shit up.

[mashman]

In what way?

That you have to ask means I get to leave you to it.