Hey I could be wrong. I don't follow Zuby on social media. I just know lots of these jolly come lately assholes who are dropping red pills about the ScamDemic now were moderate fags wearing masks so not to offend some old paranoid grandma. They put the masks on, socially distanced, now act like tough guys.
I was even listening to The Daily Shoah and those right wing white nationalists were acting like faggots mocking people for not socially distancing or masking. They were literally defending Anthony Fauci. Never thought some white nationalist podcasters would be so gay when it comes to "muh six feet" and the useless dirty masks. Even giving authenticity that there was any fucking virus for me to give a shit about in the first place.
Tucker Carlson is a good example of someone who only speaks truth when it is years too late. If he's speaking any truth about anything it's because it's already too late. These shills are desperate to get their following back. Now trying to rebrand as independent media. Fucking CIA frauds.
“The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself,” writes Codevilla, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston University.
Lol, no, it's not. And it's a dumb conclusion to arrive at if you have some basic understanding of the world biggest deceptions. (🌎 Space, viruses, nukes, nations and governments, etc....most people think they made it when they figure out trump is a Zionists puppet. You don't need to go deeper, you need to go wider.
Most of the biggest and most obvious conspiracy theories are much older and still perfectly hidden.
Theory is the operative word in Darwin's Theory of Evolution
It's not a theory though because it's not based on empirical observation. We've only observed adaptation and sexual selection. By evo theory I mean the large scale belief of the origin and evolution of life as well as the universe. It's a metaphysical claim based on fundamental presuppositions about the nature of existence (materialism, naturalism and determinism).
I can deboonk it on philosophical and logical grounds alone without getting into hermeneutics of "evidence". Scientismo basic bitch Neil De Grasse types don't know philosophy and they conveniently reject it (as if science is not based on it).
The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”
So you think the chinee didn't just land on the darkside of the moon for a holographic Pink Floyd concert?
That's a definition of theory. But for a theory to be called scientific it must adhere to the scientific method principles:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
You choosing not to believe evolution is a theory does not change the fact it is a theory. You may understand what a theory is in the context of the scientific method but you've failed to notice theory is a word that serves as a placeholder for "best guess" until it is disproven by a better theory. The history of science is cyclical, a theory is wrongly adopted then the theory is discarded when a better idea comes along. If you'd like to disprove the theory of evolution you need only come up with a better idea, until then your opinion doesn't change objective consensus.
Me believing in something or not doesn't pertain to the question. I've demonstrated the Darwinian theory of macro evolution is not a theory according to the rigorous standards applied to the term in scientific context. You're not taught "Darwin's and other biologist's best guess on the origin of life and species" in school. No, you're taught the evolutionary theory as an objective fact of nature and of reality. Just like people were taught creationism to be an undisputed fact in the Christian world before that. But Darwin's theory didn't disprove creationism, it just posited a competing explanation of creation based on a different worldview (which it did not prove to be the case but presupposed).
All evidence is theory-laden. There are no brute facts which are not subject to interpretation. The reason why you and others believe evo theory best describes the world around us is because you presuppose a certain worldview to be correct - that of naturalism and materialism. There are other worldviews that hold a different explanation for the origin of the world and life like Christianity and its account of creation.
Asking to disprove a proposition after I've accepted the worldview assumptions that led to it is called internal critique. There are many such critiques on the inconsistencies of the evo theory from there and those could lead to scientists refining it or discarding it for another one (this would take what science philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift). But I won't even go there - I'd argue the assumptions evo theory is based on are irrational and arbitrary since that worldview can't give justification for knowledge, truth, meaning or any universal concepts as a whole.
The "consensus" doesn't tell me if a proposition is true or false, it's an appeal to majority and authority. Should I get into what the scientific consensus is on climate change and the coof?
Zuby is one of those tip toe "right wing social media pundits" who only says stuff when it is too late?
What was he saying in 2020 and 2021? When this shit mattered?
Not everyone is as prescient as yourself, show me someone whose opinions never change and I will see a liar.
Hey I could be wrong. I don't follow Zuby on social media. I just know lots of these jolly come lately assholes who are dropping red pills about the ScamDemic now were moderate fags wearing masks so not to offend some old paranoid grandma. They put the masks on, socially distanced, now act like tough guys.
I was even listening to The Daily Shoah and those right wing white nationalists were acting like faggots mocking people for not socially distancing or masking. They were literally defending Anthony Fauci. Never thought some white nationalist podcasters would be so gay when it comes to "muh six feet" and the useless dirty masks. Even giving authenticity that there was any fucking virus for me to give a shit about in the first place.
Tucker Carlson is a good example of someone who only speaks truth when it is years too late. If he's speaking any truth about anything it's because it's already too late. These shills are desperate to get their following back. Now trying to rebrand as independent media. Fucking CIA frauds.
he's an Overton window stopper
Overton Window is the new parlance for Political Correctness
what?
Thank you for noticing friend.
Lol, no, it's not. And it's a dumb conclusion to arrive at if you have some basic understanding of the world biggest deceptions. (🌎 Space, viruses, nukes, nations and governments, etc....most people think they made it when they figure out trump is a Zionists puppet. You don't need to go deeper, you need to go wider.
Most of the biggest and most obvious conspiracy theories are much older and still perfectly hidden.
True. Evo theory and space are a big one.
So you think space is fake? Theory is the operative word in Darwin's Theory of Evolution
No, I think the space they sold us is fake.
It's not a theory though because it's not based on empirical observation. We've only observed adaptation and sexual selection. By evo theory I mean the large scale belief of the origin and evolution of life as well as the universe. It's a metaphysical claim based on fundamental presuppositions about the nature of existence (materialism, naturalism and determinism).
I can deboonk it on philosophical and logical grounds alone without getting into hermeneutics of "evidence". Scientismo basic bitch Neil De Grasse types don't know philosophy and they conveniently reject it (as if science is not based on it).
It's a Theory not a law.
So you think the chinee didn't just land on the darkside of the moon for a holographic Pink Floyd concert?
That's a definition of theory. But for a theory to be called scientific it must adhere to the scientific method principles:
In the context of science:
You choosing not to believe evolution is a theory does not change the fact it is a theory. You may understand what a theory is in the context of the scientific method but you've failed to notice theory is a word that serves as a placeholder for "best guess" until it is disproven by a better theory. The history of science is cyclical, a theory is wrongly adopted then the theory is discarded when a better idea comes along. If you'd like to disprove the theory of evolution you need only come up with a better idea, until then your opinion doesn't change objective consensus.
Me believing in something or not doesn't pertain to the question. I've demonstrated the Darwinian theory of macro evolution is not a theory according to the rigorous standards applied to the term in scientific context. You're not taught "Darwin's and other biologist's best guess on the origin of life and species" in school. No, you're taught the evolutionary theory as an objective fact of nature and of reality. Just like people were taught creationism to be an undisputed fact in the Christian world before that. But Darwin's theory didn't disprove creationism, it just posited a competing explanation of creation based on a different worldview (which it did not prove to be the case but presupposed).
All evidence is theory-laden. There are no brute facts which are not subject to interpretation. The reason why you and others believe evo theory best describes the world around us is because you presuppose a certain worldview to be correct - that of naturalism and materialism. There are other worldviews that hold a different explanation for the origin of the world and life like Christianity and its account of creation.
Asking to disprove a proposition after I've accepted the worldview assumptions that led to it is called internal critique. There are many such critiques on the inconsistencies of the evo theory from there and those could lead to scientists refining it or discarding it for another one (this would take what science philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift). But I won't even go there - I'd argue the assumptions evo theory is based on are irrational and arbitrary since that worldview can't give justification for knowledge, truth, meaning or any universal concepts as a whole.
The "consensus" doesn't tell me if a proposition is true or false, it's an appeal to majority and authority. Should I get into what the scientific consensus is on climate change and the coof?
Ya, after the globe space thing, evo and Dinosaurs fall apart