Jump to content
Cynique

Who knows?

Recommended Posts

Cynique

 

Stable" mind as in a stagnant mentality?


No, stable mind as in not letting White racists influence your mind into confusion and disbelieving reality (what you actually see).
White men can easily raise all kinds of doubts in your mind about the Universe and Who created it but if you notice -they don't give you actual answers to the questions they raise.

 
 

You don't know the origin of the universe. All you are doing is parroting the intelligent design theory, taking the easy way out.


No one on in this thread does.
None of the White men you like quoting and pondering the lame ass ideas of, do either.
Yet that doesn't stop you from obsessing with them and pondering on every little quack theory they come up with.
Just face it, you are in love with White men....lol.



 

And your reference to schizophrenia has nothing to do with "uncommon" (rare) sense. I'm neither hearing voices in my head nor suffering from paranoia.


Hallucination isn't the ONLY symptom of schizophrenia.....so are delusions or "twisted" thinking that can't be straightened out with reason.
 

 



 

Troy



where do you think "The Supreme (most powerful) Being" came from? How did they come into existence?


I don't know, but it is an IRRELEVANT question to this conversation.

I made the statement that I believe the Universe is created.
That statement is VALID until PROVEN true or false.

Trying to figure out the ORIGINS of the ORIGINATOR is a mere diversion.




 

Because while you demand proof to the contrary, your position can not be proven either.


Then what is the argument?

If you don't accept my opinion.....you don't accept it.
But you can't call it "illogical" or "unreasonable" UNTIL you can disprove it as such.

Which I don't believe you can....lol.




 

Pioneer makes declarative statements on premises that are either;

patently false (which I assert is illogical, or just dumb, as in the case of multiple races), or

which can not be proven to be true (as in the case with there being a creator (implying an very powerful sentient entity) of the universe

 


Now all I've done is ask @Pioneer1 to respond to a question which I think will expose a flaw in his reasoning (perhaps that is why he is dodging it), and you are bogging this down in technicalities.


The very theme of this thread was is based on a "theory" that can't be proven true.
Yet you are perfectly willing to consider it if not accept it all together!



You are willing to consider that we are images or mini-images of the Universe that can't be proven true......but NOT so willing to accept that there is a more powerful One Who CREATED that Universe!






Del


 

Troy how can an opinion be invalid?


If it's coming from another Black man.....that's how.

If it comes from an educated White man in glasses, even if it can't be proven....it's accepted.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a white man; he is a premiere black scientist and he would challenge and even refute just about everything you imagine you know about science. Can you come up with any black scientists besides him who I should be listening to? You keep advancing the irrational lie that i am in love with white men because i am curious about the origin of the universe and prefer spirituality to religion.  You're obsessed and paranoid in this regard and come across as an unbalanced individual with a personality disorder.   Seek help.  :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique


You're obsessed and paranoid in this regard and come across as an unbalanced individual with a personality disorder. Seek help


YOU are the one who's self-admittedly pondering.
YOU are the one who is starting thread after thread asking questions.
So YOU are the one who obviously needs "help".....lol.

 

 

 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a white man; he is a premiere black scientist and he would challenge and even refute just about everything you imagine you know about science

No scientist worth their weight would dispute what I've said.
Most of them would simply leave it alone because THEY are smart enough NOT to get into an argument they can't win.....lol.

Those who do decide to touch on it would simply call it "inconclusive" because they knew they couldn't come up with any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE/PROOF that actually contradicts what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pondering is not a synonym for obsession. It is an exercise in deep thought which i indulge in from time to time. Something you ought to experiment with.   Being curious is not a aberration. It's a quest for knowledge.  And of course, you never pass up an opportunity  to inject your swill into the subjects i bring up. BTW, Tyson and white scientists are in accord, so where does that leave you?  And, indeed, he wouldn't bother arguing with you because he knows people like you who never let facts get in their way, can't be separated from their opinions.  And never once have you given a specific example of a white man that i am enamoured with.  You're are neurotically deluded about this, previously admitting, yourself, that you are filled with envy. SMH.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cynique

Being curious is not a aberration. It's a quest for knowledge


Being curious and questing for knowledge isn't the problem, it's WHO you're RE-questing that knowledge FROM that leads me to believe that you are inlove with White men.
....either consciously or subconsciously.


 

 

BTW, Tyson and white scientists are in accord, so where does that leave you?
 

It leaves all of us in the same position because THEY aren't arguing with me.
Like I said.....they WOULDN'T.

Unlike you and Troy, they wouldn't challenge my OPINION unless they had EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or PROOF that they could bring to make their case against it absolute.




SMH.


Nah sweetie don't do that....
Shaking your head too much may be what CAUSED the problem in the first place, lol.

Grab a turkey leg and some dressing and go on over on the couch and rest yourself...lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise that you are led wrong, because you are wrong and all of your verbal acobatics  and distortions won't distract from the fact that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.  You have evaded every challenge i have put to you in regard to your unfounded accusations and declarations  and just keep resorting to the same old repetitive litany. If you were  the only choice, i would love white men, but fortunately there are other black men around who are different from you.  Thank goodness!

 

(You obviously haven't  read the last 2 posts on Part 1 of this thread.  Troy is who you need to be trying to make your points with.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

 

No surprise that you are led wrong, because you are wrong and all of your verbal acobatics and distortions won't distract from the fact that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Well like I keep saying....if I'm wrong, then PROVE it.
Just provide empirical (not hearsay) evidence and proof that what I'm saying is wrong.


You are just pondering and wondering outloud....not providing concrete facts about the Universe and similar concepts.


You have evaded every challenge i have put to you in regard to your unfounded accusations and declarations and just keep resorting to the same old repetitive litany. If you were the only choice, i would love white men,


Now see...
Why do you have to make strong emotional statements like that?

Talking about if there were NO OTHER Black men on the planet.....besides me....you'd just go ahead and start loving some White men....lol.


See, this PROVES that you disagree with me simply for the sake of being disagreeable.

I hope everyone sees the anger and the hatred and which side it's coming from.

I'd NEVER say that to YOU.
I'd NEVER tell you that if there were no other Black women around....well....I might as well start loving some White women, lol.

I'd wait and see where things went first.....THEN if things didn't work out....well.....I'd have little choice but to consider White women.....lol.



 

but fortunately there are other black men around who are different from you. Thank goodness!

Oh yeah....
I forgot, you love and admire HALF-Black men (like Obama and Kaepernick) ALMOST as much as you love and admire White men.


 

(You obviously haven't read the last 2 posts on Part 1 of this thread. Troy is who you need to be trying to make your points with.)


You obviously haven't read the FIRST post on Part 2 of this thread because I addressed Troy.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy Vanilla ice cream is the best. And if you can't see that you are being illogical and unreasonable. 

 

Is that clearer to You.

There's a difference amongst the following opinions beliefs arguments.

I can have an opinion that is wrong but I cant see why it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 CAN YOU READ?  IF YOU CAREFULLY READ MY LAST POST ON PART 1,  I  SAID THAT I DIDN'T AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN! WHAT I AM CALLING YOU WRONG ABOUT IS YOUR DRONING ON AND ON ABOUT ME BEING IN LOVE WITH WHITE  MEN, YET CANNOT SUPPLY EVEN ONE NAME TO BACK UP YOUR SILLY ACCUSATION SO YOU HAVE NO PROOF. AND EVEN IF YOUR PATHETIC ACCUSATIONS WERE TRUE ABOUT ME LOVING WHITE MEN, WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE?  BTW, IF YOU CANT TAKE THE VITRIOL, DON'T DISH IT OUT.  I'M DONE. GOOD GRIEF.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy when people say technically you are right. They are implying that you are wrong in the other part of your argument or statement. you are equating my disageeeing with you as my being wrong. i am using standard definitions. So your use of valid is technically wrong although it is correct in your mind. i am being stringent. you can use logic or numbers to make a point . However if you're bending it like Wreckum, I am going to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del stop. You write with way too many typos to demand such stringency from anyone.  On one hand you demand absolute rigidity as it pertains to math, while at the same time, you far less stringent when it comes to science particularly when it comes to our collective knowledge on climate change.

 

Pioneer you demand absolute proof when someone disagrees with you but when someone asks you a simple question like who created your creator you say that it does not matter.  This make it illogical to debate with your because you are inconsistent.

 

Perhaps, @Pioneer1, inconsistency is where you and @Delano have found common ground.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i correct your usage of terms you say I'm technically right.

 

Troy you don't understand the climate change model. I had to explain to you that there's isn't one credible predictive model. It is based only on data from the mid 1980. And they don't use the temperature. They are using changes in temperature.  

 

So my post has no errors. Can you fix your faulty reasoning.  STOP using terms you don't understand. Your better than that or at least you should be better... Having an engineering degrees isn't assisting you in statistics or logic. 

 

Find one credible statistical model that proves climate change. Also how is it you want me to teach you statistics so you can understand what was presented. 

 

You can't find one credible model. Nor can you interpret its results. So when you have either looked at the source data or their model and have critiqued it let me know. Otherwise you are luxuriating in ignorance. 

 

You have studied much more math than I. The reverse is true of statistics. Or do you believe that you understand statistics better than myself? 

 

 

 

 

An opinion can be  logically sound yet be false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try bullet points.

 

Hidden Source Data

Altered Data.

Cherry picked base year.

20 models and only 4 sometimes work.

 

That is the "science" you are defending. 

 

It used to be called Global Warming. They had to change the name because some places were getting colder. They had to change the name. Let that sink in for a minute or longer.

They had to changed to change the name because the actual  temperature didn't match the prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Troy can you use your powers of observation.Why do you think of this organisation that is trying to combat climate change? You are free to use this or any other data. Then I will elucidate the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.be72fe794e3242ba30bb625115de32d5.png

 

image.thumb.png.b33ce1bb9f36f26d97bb5a81fc8397a9.png

 

 

image.thumb.png.1d4cc1cb8b0c07cae7b0f8c6ef16c482.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No lets stick with with yes or no Del.  Do you understand the climate better than the vast majority of scientists?   

 

One can find alternative evidence to anything on the web.  Sometimes conspiracy theories can be quote convincing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are conflating your inability to understand a situation with my reasoning. 

 

So I will help clarify the issue. 

Read the three links from the Union of Concerned Scientists. A not for profit that has the task of combating climate change. The second link states 80% of the funding they receive goes to programs. So that's good. Next I read their annual report. I want to see their financials. There are no Balance Sheets or Income Statements. So I search for their tax filings. Every year they receive $30 mil in contributions. Salaries are $18 mil. Can you do that math?

I am posting this for people that are capable of thinking. The Union of Concerned Scientists are making misleading statements and hiding the numbers. That's what these "Scientists" are all about, Troy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

((Lol....who the hell is SHE yelling at?))
 


Cynique

CAN YOU READ? IF YOU CAREFULLY READ MY LAST POST ON PART 1, I SAID THAT I DIDN'T AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN! WHAT I AM CALLING YOU WRONG ABOUT IS YOUR DRONING ON AND ON ABOUT ME BEING IN LOVE WITH WHITE MEN,

Yes, I DID read that post.
But I ALSO READ the other statements you made later:

"Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a white man; he is a premiere black scientist and he would challenge and even refute just about everything you imagine you know about science. "

"BTW, Tyson and white scientists are in accord, so where does that leave you? And, indeed, he wouldn't bother arguing with you because he knows people like you who never let facts get in their way, can't be separated from their opinions. "

 


Clearly in these statements you are calling my SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS wrong.

So when you say:
"No surprise that you are led wrong, because you are wrong and all of your verbal acobatics and distortions won't distract from the fact that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about"

 

How am I supposed to all of a sudden assume you're NOT talking about my scientific beliefs but are now talking about my exposing your love for White men?

You need to establish CLEAR lines of demarcation in your statements instead of running everything together and then getting mad if someone can't figure it out.....lol.

 

 

 

 


Troy


Pioneer you demand absolute proof when someone disagrees with you but when someone asks you a simple question like who created your creator you say that it does not matter.

No, I just ask for proof when someone says I'm absolultely WRONG.
People can disagree about opinions, but people shouldn't disagree over established FACTS.
So if I'm wrong about a fact I'd like to be corrected, but with PROOF.


Now I'm not saying that asking questions about The Creator doesn't matter.

But clearly it's a diversionary tactic used by many people who don't want to accept Creationism.
It's a way of changing the subject or taking the focus away from the original claim.

If you ask me who was the first American to start building cars, and I say Henry Ford.

What does it matter who his parents were or where they came from?

What does it matter what color his hair and eyes were?

All of these questions are irrelevant to the original subject of discussion and will only take us off the path and have us rolling around in the weeds.....lol.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

How am I supposed to all of a sudden assume you're NOT talking about my scientific beliefs but are now talking about my exposing your love for White men?

Yada, yada, yada.  i don't really care about what you can't figure out. Which is most things. 

 townsend.jpg.dbc875128cd08f66dd4f2afca82a0c44.jpg :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2017 at 2:10 PM, Del said:

 

Troy can you use your powers of observation.Why do you think of this organisation that is trying to combat climate change? You are free to use this or any other data. Then I will elucidate the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

image.thumb.png.be72fe794e3242ba30bb625115de32d5.png

 

image.thumb.png.b33ce1bb9f36f26d97bb5a81fc8397a9.png

 

 

image.thumb.png.1d4cc1cb8b0c07cae7b0f8c6ef16c482.png

@Mel Hopkins

@Cynique

@Pioneer1

have a read and tell me your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these scientists concerned about climate change being real, or about climate change being unrealistic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say it's real.

The second slide is basically their mission statement.  And a synopsis of what they do and how they operate.

They say 81% of the funds are for programs and only 4% is for administrative costs . However looking at their tax documents about 60% of the funds raised pays gir salaries. The average salary being 90,000 a year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's obviously about the money.

I'm not getting in between Troy and Del's ongoing debate, but I put these "green groups" in the SAME category as these so-called "poverty programs" that are being funded by the federal government.

And just like these non-profit housing, drugs, and social service organizations.....most of these environmental think tanks just provide more excuses to give White people jobs where they sit around and DO NOTHING.

Here you have smart White people who've concocted schemes to suck billions of dollars to pay for "studies" and "research" and "preventive measures".

I believe the environment is being polluted, but I doubt most of these scientists are SERIOUS about solving the problem.
They are making too much money from things being just the way they are.

These are nothing more than "jobs programs" for White people with degrees who can't or won't find jobs in corporate America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sometimes you comment without reading the link.

 

It would appear to be money driven. on addition the percentages are misleading. 80% goes to programs. However 60% of the 80% goes to salary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @Delano watch this video on climate change (climate science: what you need to know).  And let me know if it changes you mind in the least bit?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...