Sardonic Smile @[email protected]
I spent all this time trying to be one of you and now I realize... I'm not.
Joined Sep 2022
1st Singaporean PM on botched CIA operation. #briefchaat #americangovern... https://youtube.com/shorts/HkWiwbEigcQ
These Engines Only Last 4 Seconds https://youtube.com/shorts/sVB5PiOxshA
Steve Eisman Reacts to Scenes From The Big Short https://youtube.com/watch?v=O9tHSSlY6eg
Sardonic Smile
boosted
Joe Rogan: “These motherf*ckers are talking about drafting people. Palantir thinks we should re-introduce conscription. I don’t understand why anybody would wanna support that after this Iran war where everybody’s like why the f*ck are we in Iran?
Sardonic Smile
boosted
Dan Blizzarian allegedly has 12% Jewish DNA according to this Asmongold video
I do not care if he has 100% Jewish DNA
As long as he outlaws the anti Goyim practices of the Kike religion and legally eliminates the nation of counterfeit Israel
The British Crown Used THIS Economic System To Drain India's Wealth.
Holy shit! They did this so quick!
Watch: Kevin Warsh’s Full Fed Chair Confirmation Hearing | WSJ https://youtube.com/live/w5cFi3RQqZ4
Sardonic Smile
boosted
Sardonic Smile
boosted
> You are wrong. We are not talking a legal process, we are talking scientific evidence.
If you can't trust eyewitness evidence, you can't trust the evidence science collects, as by definition it must be witnessed and interpreted by the scientists.
> You must learn the difference between evidence in a legal court, and the evidence that science requires.
So you define evidence to suit your requirements? There is no difference. Science merely requires replication of that evidence.
> Before you know this, you cannot understand the arguments I make.
What I understand is that your arguments don't apply to reality, but to some small subset of reality that you carefully define.
If you can't trust eyewitness evidence, you can't trust the evidence science collects, as by definition it must be witnessed and interpreted by the scientists.
> You must learn the difference between evidence in a legal court, and the evidence that science requires.
So you define evidence to suit your requirements? There is no difference. Science merely requires replication of that evidence.
> Before you know this, you cannot understand the arguments I make.
What I understand is that your arguments don't apply to reality, but to some small subset of reality that you carefully define.
I spent all this time trying to be one of you and now I realize... I'm not.
Joined Sep 2022
