Janic wrote:
ABC2019 »11/11/20, 22:17
Ah yes ? I found her rather intelligent, measured, drawing attention to cognitive biases, in short, which makes you think, unlike your C. which, on the contrary, distracts you from thinking.
janic wrote: We expected no less! Who resemble each other assemble and we do not make dogs out of cats, when the intelligence in question is not enough to determine any truth. Most totalitarian systems have intelligent people at their head, you just have to see how it works! His rhetoric suffers from it!
Mengélé, the Nazi doctor, had surrounded himself with the best doctors of his time, probably among the most intelligent. We saw what it gave!
the day you find me references from Nazis disserting on cognitive biases, you will call me!
Ah, ah, ah! when an individual claims to be a judge on the value of cognitive biases without comparing them to his own, this is called self-reference and therefore it is difficult to judge others.
Your girl did not confront each point of view face to face, but by arbitrary selection of passages extracted and cut from their context, (intellectually contestable moreover) it gives what you and your alter egos, including the extractor in question who takes refuge in a very accommodating anonymity, like the others hiding behind their mask (the only one who really assumes himself, with indisputable skills on the points he knows (according to his point of view) it is primum no nod and I appreciate that kind of person, but it's rare!
You can be intelligent and perverted, but this lady is not a clinical picture of a pervert.
The perverts do not appear when it is! She expresses her point of view and it is her right, but to distort text and context (therefore questionable)
You on the contrary, by your way of continually diverting questions, you are right in it. Your enjoyment is expressed when you have succeeded in bringing the discussion to your favorite field, the exchange of sterile insults, which you provoke yourself by your speeches, by saying anything until the debate is over. no longer makes sense. Everything is described in detail in the "JOE Method", that's exactly what you're doing right now.
In fact you describe yourself thus, by the menu and it is quite realistic.
And so it left with your narcissism by self-referencing a method that you invented and in which you are the only one to believe.
You haven't found a single adherent to it, even among your alter egos! so she is not worth a nail! My transformed version is also worth as much (or as little).
Above all, you don't know anything in health sciences above all!
And so you left on a reflection that you did not understand anything, but it is a habit.
That is a fact!
Did you watch the other 1.000 videos to check, as a whole, if this speech (unfortunate, of course, because poorly expressed) corresponded to it.
Oh apologies, YOU NEVER CHECK, contenting yourself with fake news from your pseudo-scientist friends
what "fake news"? to say that it is not wrong to say that a human arm could grow back while drinking turnip juice, is not that pseudo-scientific fake news according to you?
this is not fakenews, since C made it clear that this type of claim would be false. When we lay a fakenews we do not specify that it is false otherwise it is useless.
"fake news" is Trump's vocabulary, it's no coincidence that you use the same methods as him: say anything while accusing others of doing it.
Trump in addition, that's a massive argument!
The fake news you use was denounced as soon as you released this one on the H, to begin with, and to this day you haven't stopped releasing this kind of talk on almost every subject, including this one. this.
so why do you blame others for doing the same?
because I don't do THAT !! I am not taking a position on supporting or fighting the establishment, I am taking a position on respecting the scientific spirit or not.
But, personally, I don't just do that either, I also support scientific speeches, but not when they are not led astray by zigotos like you and your self-declared pseudo-scientists
I do not blame anyone for fighting generally accepted ideas, all great scientists have done it - but they did it with a rational attitude, not by saying anything!
And yet, reread yourself, this is far from the case!
But obviously you don't understand what it means to have a rational attitude!
Vanity, vanities! Your narcissism is playing tricks on you! Reread the dictionary definitions on this term, rather than focusing on what you think you know (
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré