Silent Seeker @[email protected]

@shortstories You don't know history, you don't know how we know history and you can't prove your version of history. There are books out there, written by people a lot smarter then you and they have a hard time proving their version and disproving the official version. Elementary level history is story time. Actual historian level history is 99% evidence based. There are still theories, but almost all of them are just lacking any undeniable evidence. You only need evidence to change history.

@shortstories Sorry, can you prove, that kikes exist? I need a 100% reliable method, that I can use on the spot on any random human being.

@shortstories No exceptions. You said history is a useless social science. So in your reality history don't exist. Unless it happened today, it's fiction.

@shortstories No, no no... there's no undenieble evidence, that your views are correct. Since you want to ban History, that means you can't prove, that anything, that the jews did, ever happened. You also can't prove, that anything, that you believe in have ever happened. So it must be defunded and banned as fiction.

@shortstories I'm glad that you're a devoted supporter of the elites plan, that everyone but them, should only be one degree better than literal farm animals.

@shortstories Please, don't exclude your your mental illness. List everything, that isn't 100% confirmed and proven by mathematics and real world based science. Every single religion must go. We need to embrace rationality.

@shortstories You forgot to list theology and every single religion. We don't need groups, that justify believing in imaginary friends, who grant wished just because you pretend to love them. They also enabled the worst acts of human evil multiple times. They're also actively denying scientific evidence and were disproven hundreds of times for hundreds of years. Tax, defund all of them and declare their supporters mentally ill.

@shortstories @h4890 Please drop the vagueness. You keep speaking in hypotheticals. We can name these people and check who they were.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
Unnamed article: 2
Biologist: 4
Environmental advocate: 1
Ecologist: 2
Unknown, maybe philosophy (Peter Gunter): 1
Physicist: 1
Most of the claims belong to 2 Biologists.

If you search for Physicist fails specifically, you learn that there's a bunch of claims based on miss calculations. Boring and not really relevant to real life.

@Tfmonkey @CheshireHuman Yes, I'm aware of your side by side comparison list where woman only have 5 items. And no one ever argued with the physical points of that list. We can see, that they hold true even to this day.
The intellectual parts are debatable. Research is ongoing in labs and society.
Mary Wollstonecraft's essay on the subject is an good read. It's a bit outdated (250ish years old), but contain good arguments. (110 pages)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Woman

@CheshireHuman @Tfmonkey Your argument is correct in identifying one of woman's natural strengths in society. But you deducted the wrong conclusion from it.
There's no superior gender. Both genders have their roles in society.
When it comes to the question of leadership, the context and the available candidate's personalities and skills both matter regardless of their sex. There are examples in history of females succeeding as rulers in hard times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut

@h4890 @shortstories Well, I'm not trained to do the calculations myself, but I think I'm familiar with the talking points of both sides. And as usual, both sides have credibility, but also personal bias. The Greenhouse effect is real and proven. That can't be taken away from the supporters. But the deniers also correct, that we might be over reacting and there are people who making money on fake solutions. (Bill Gates: CO2 capture business)
Either way, that truth usually require both sides.

@h4890 @shortstories You fall easier to topics, that you don't know. Social science professors likely don't spend days digging into the details of real climate change risk. But they understand the risk and react to it. Although I would wonder how many people in the supposedly high IQ redpill community actually know the science behind climate change and where it originate from. Because it originate from natural scientists and not social scientists.

"Why Don't We Eat Rat Meat Everywhere If Rats Are Everywhere"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI94lZV-KbI

It's a good question and the explanation offered is legit. However, when it comes to efficiency, they lose to the chicken for the same reason as edible insects and other meat animals. Chickens lay eggs. Cows can provide milk. Almost everything else is just meat once and more of the same animal when reproducing. Pigs are economical due to their size and diet, despite producing nothing else.

@shortstories https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/12/paper-says-physical-scientists-smarter-and-less-religious-social-scientists

Okay, according to your source, you're a low IQ savage, because you're religious and a political extremist. These finding were also reported by a psychologist, who explained, that these higher IQ natural scientists usually don't care about politics to begin with. So long story short, these High IQ natural scientists, that you worship so much, couldn't give less of a shit about you and anything that you believe in. But Social scientists do. :D

@shortstories Well duh... They'll vote left to secure funding for their research, just like people on the other side of the spectrum. Unfortunately politics decide the direction of science. But actual scientific progress requires both sides to work together, just like you need both sides of your brain to function.
However, propaganda isn't part of science. Doing so would be career suicide.

@shortstories
"Main Fields of Social Science
Anthropology: Studies human cultures, past and present, and human evolution.
Economics: Explores how people and societies make, share, and use money and goods.
Political Science: Examines governments, laws, and how political power works.
Psychology: Looks at the human mind, brain functions, and individual behavior.
Sociology: Investigates human society, social groups, and how people interact in communities."

Nah... I think it's the other way around.

@shortstories Not sure what difference does it make for you.

@shortstories I think you're missing the point as usual. He was able to work as an actor before, so he clearly don't fall into the severe intellectual disability category. He's clearly deformed physically, but his brain is apparently fine. I mean... in this clip, he's struggling to speak, because of his jaw, but he's not stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL82jwMczWI

People like this are usually used to better understand the condition, since they can actually answer questions.

@shortstories For starters: He clearly don't have any training or real knowledge on the topic.
He failed to understand which BPD was discussed. He said Bi-Polar Disorder, but the BPD he talked about was Borderline Personality Disorder. Bipolar is usually medicated and usually predictable. Borderline isn't. Borderline is a personality disorder and requires CBT (cognitiv behaviour therapy), aka re-education. Although it's also a retired diagnosis now. They usually replace it with CPTSD.