Assumptions

[Dutch Uncle]

You gave random numbers and repeated your scripture again. That isn't an answer, dude.

Again, a liar like you is lying about being a Christian.

 

[Into the Night]

yes. fascism.

Explain. How does science create fascism?

 

[IBDaMann]

I am a Christian. I do worship by faith.

You were wise enough to not accept any sort of doctrine that mandates you believe that your faith is science, and that instead of sharing your faith, you are to mock, and fear, and HATE, those who do not believe as you do.

Congratulations on avoiding that.

 

[Into the Night]

So many words to avoid admitting you were wrong. Hypothesis comes first.

Wow, you are so lost up your own ass it's astounding.

"A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation. A theory is a well-supported explanation of observations. A scientific law is a statement that summarizes the relationship between variables. An experiment is a controlled method of testing a hypothesis." (SOURCE)


C'mon dude, this is shit they teach LITTLE KIDS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS. Wow. You are a moron.

Nope. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. All theories begin as theories. There is no 'graduation' of a theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again, a liar like you is lying about being a Christian.

Again, a liar such as yourself is lying by trying to project his dishonesty onto others.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Science is not a government agency. Science isn't 'tools'.
Medical needles and drugs are created by engineering, not science.
Going to the Moon was engineering, not science.

RQAA

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Again, a liar such as yourself is lying by trying to project his dishonesty onto others.

People can judge for themselves, Sybil. That’s something most psychos like yourself can never understand.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You were wise enough to not accept any sort of doctrine that mandates you believe that your faith is science, and that instead of sharing your faith, you are to mock, and fear, and HATE, those who do not believe as you do.

Congratulations on avoiding that.

I love it when you talk to yourself, Sybil. It’s like watching a nutjob masturbate himself in public. Interesting since I know you are “off”.

 

[IBDaMann]

Explain. How does science create fascism?

JesusAI is worse than Swan in redefining terms. Feel free to ask him yourself. He thinks that fascism is the free interaction of commercial markets with the government. For example, if a government office were to have a BPO (blanket purchase order) agreement with Staples to buy printer paper, toner, pens, paper clips, etc ... that's fascism.

If you read something by JesusAI, you can conclude that one thing he does not mean is what he has written and that you are going to need quite a few rounds of clarification, each time with him providing cryptic, terse and unhelpful responses.

I'll help you out on this one. The topic was (commercial) contractors like JPL, Rockwell, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc ... on government contract ... engendering his response "yes, fascism."

His post does not contribute to JPP in any way, it is more of a plug for one of his redefinitions. He was telling you how he believes the word "fascism" is defined. I tried giving him a link to THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM by Benito Mussolini & Giovanni Gentile but he's looking to redefine the term, not learn what it really means.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you science illiterate, you start with a hypothesis and then test it. If it stands up to repeated tests over and over and over again it becomes a theory.

No hypothesis ever becomes a theory. No theory ever becomes a hypothesis. A theory is a theory and a hypothesis is a hypothesis. Obviously, you never learned English.

Geez you and Into The Night are two science morons.

Nah. You are just describing yourself again.

WHY DO YOU THINK I GAVE THE LINK????

A Holy Link is not a proof nor does it define science, theory, hypothesis, nor religion.

You don't have a clue what "theory" means in science. Just shut up. It's painful to hear you say shit.

Theory means the same anywhere. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Even a theory of science is an explanatory argument. This is the 'model' that IBDaMann refers to. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable...that is, you MUST be able to test it against the null hypothesis. That test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result.

A nonscientific theory need not be falsifiable, but like all theories, it cannot be based on a logical fallacy (internal consistency check).

The Theory of the Big Bang states that the Universe began from a single point and expanded into what we have today. This theory ignores the fact that there is no known boundary to the Universe. The event was not observed or even observable. This theory is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. It therefore remains a circular argument. Since it's inception many arguments now stem from it, turning this theory into a religion (the Church of Big Bang). There are many fundamentalists in this religion, each trying to prove the religion True, usually by contriving 'data' to 'prove' it.

The Theory of Evolution states that higher life forms, including Man, evolved from simpler life forms (essentially single celled forms). No one has observed this, and it is not possible to observe. The event is not observed or even observable. This theory is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. It therefore remains a circular argument. Since it's inception in ancient Greece, many arguments now stem from this circular argument, making it a religion (and an old one at that!). There are many fundamentalists in this religion (the Church of Evolution).

The Theory of Creation states that Man and other life forms arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. Usually this is some sort of god or gods, but it doesn't have to be. We could for example, be nothing more than the results of a horrible lab accident on some alien world, and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.
The Theory of Creation is an unobserved event. It is not falsifiable. It remains a circular argument and now has arguments stemming from that, making it a religion (the Church of Creation).

The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life arrived on Earth through a series of random unspecified events (all of them unobserved). It is an unobserved event and not observable. It is not falsifiable. It too is a religion (the Church of Abiogenesis).

Your Holy Link changes nothing. The word 'theory' first appeared in the English lexicon in the 1590's, coming from Latin and Greek 'theorios'. A theory is an explanatory argument. It does not matter if the theory is a scientific one or a nonscientific one. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable.

Not the technical definition.

There is no 'technical definition'. The word 'theory' remains the same everywhere, both as a theory of science and as a nonscientific theory.

Jesus, people learn this in elementary school.

Ah. So you are product of a lousy public education. That explains a lot.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No hypothesis ever becomes a theory. No theory ever becomes a hypothesis. A theory is a theory and a hypothesis is a hypothesis. Obviously, you never learned English.

Nah. You are just describing yourself again.

A Holy Link is not a proof nor does it define science, theory, hypothesis, nor religion.

Theory means the same anywhere. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Even a theory of science is an explanatory argument. This is the 'model' that IBDaMann refers to. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable...that is, you MUST be able to test it against the null hypothesis. That test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result.

A nonscientific theory need not be falsifiable, but like all theories, it cannot be based on a logical fallacy (internal consistency check).

The Theory of the Big Bang states that the Universe began from a single point and expanded into what we have today. This theory ignores the fact that there is no known boundary to the Universe. The event was not observed or even observable. This theory is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. It therefore remains a circular argument. Since it's inception many arguments now stem from it, turning this theory into a religion (the Church of Big Bang). There are many fundamentalists in this religion, each trying to prove the religion True, usually by contriving 'data' to 'prove' it.

The Theory of Evolution states that higher life forms, including Man, evolved from simpler life forms (essentially single celled forms). No one has observed this, and it is not possible to observe. The event is not observed or even observable. This theory is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. It therefore remains a circular argument. Since it's inception in ancient Greece, many arguments now stem from this circular argument, making it a religion (and an old one at that!). There are many fundamentalists in this religion (the Church of Evolution).

The Theory of Creation states that Man and other life forms arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence. Usually this is some sort of god or gods, but it doesn't have to be. We could for example, be nothing more than the results of a horrible lab accident on some alien world, and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.
The Theory of Creation is an unobserved event. It is not falsifiable. It remains a circular argument and now has arguments stemming from that, making it a religion (the Church of Creation).

The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life arrived on Earth through a series of random unspecified events (all of them unobserved). It is an unobserved event and not observable. It is not falsifiable. It too is a religion (the Church of Abiogenesis).

Your Holy Link changes nothing. The word 'theory' first appeared in the English lexicon in the 1590's, coming from Latin and Greek 'theorios'. A theory is an explanatory argument. It does not matter if the theory is a scientific one or a nonscientific one. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable.

There is no 'technical definition'. The word 'theory' remains the same everywhere, both as a theory of science and as a nonscientific theory.

Ah. So you are product of a lousy public education. That explains a lot.

Psychotic bullshit which I doubt anyone but your “friends” read…before masturbating.

 

[Cypress]

Science is your religion. Climate deniers are anathema. What's interesting is your whole tranny dogma isnt based on science in the least just like your approach to the covid plandemic.

You are a terrible mind reader
Science and religion are asking different questions.

I've probably attended church service more often than you in the last year.

 

[Into the Night]

JesusAI is worse than Swan in redefining terms.

I have to agree with that one! Swan cant' even keep track of a conversation.

Feel free to ask him yourself.

I already made that mistake.

He thinks that fascism is the free interaction of commercial markets with the government. For example, if a government office were to have a BPO (blanket purchase order) agreement with Staples to buy printer paper, toner, pens, paper clips, etc ... that's fascism.

Not quite. He believes that fascism is any corporation, especially if a corporation sells products internationally.

If you read something by JesusAI, you can conclude that one thing he does not mean is what he has written and that you are going to need quite a few rounds of clarification, each time with him providing cryptic, terse and unhelpful responses.

I've gone through that already with him.

I'll help you out on this one. The topic was (commercial) contractors like JPL, Rockwell, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc ... on government contract ... engendering his response "yes, fascism."

Yeah. That fits. Any corporation is 'fascism' to him.

His post does not contribute to JPP in any way, it is more of a plug for one of his redefinitions.

This is quite true. He DOES like to hijack most any thread in this way.

He was telling you how he believes the word "fascism" is defined.

Yes. Like I said, he rarely does anything else.

I tried giving him a link to THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM by Benito Mussolini & Giovanni Gentile but he's looking to redefine the term, not learn what it really means.

When you stare through pink sunglasses everything is pink.

 

[Into the Night]

Psychotic bullshit which I doubt anyone but your “friends” read…before masturbating.

There ya go...trying to speak for everyone again. Omniscience fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You are a terrible mind reader
Science and religion are asking different questions.

I've probably attended church service more often than you in the last year.

A religion is not a 'service'.

 

[IBDaMann]

Science and religion are asking different questions.

Neither science nor religion ask questions. Science and religion both provide a body of answers. Those are what differ.

 

[IBDaMann]

Psychotic bullshit which I doubt anyone but your “friends” read…before masturbating.

Does that mean you masturbate alone on your drug "journey" bullshit ... or do you actually have friends that join in?

Go read a book.

 

[IBDaMann]

Not quite. He believes that fascism is any corporation, especially if a corporation sells products internationally.

He gave me a different impression but he's whacked and there's no reasoning with him.

Something I didn't mention previously, JesusAI got this whole "corporations are fascism" bit by misunderstanding the word "corporate" as used back in the 1930s. Fascism was really just an "update and patch" to Marx's socialism. However, one of the changes was to use nationalism to unite/rally the people behind the omnipotent government, and thus market the omnipotence of the government as being the power of the "body of the people", the corps., the corpus, ... and thus fascism would be the corporate embodiment of the people, not a commercial "corporation" per today's colloquial English understanding.

The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini and Gentile
We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. Whereas, during the years of demoliberal regime, labour looked with diffidence upon the state, was, in fact, outside the State and against the state, and considered the state an enemy of every day and every hour, there is not one working Italian today who does not seek a place in his Corporation or federation, who does not wish to be a living atom of that great,immense, living organization which is the national Corporate State of Fascism.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Does that mean you masturbate alone on your drug "journey" bullshit ... or do you actually have friends that join in?

Go read a book.

No, Sybil, but the fact you truly believe most people believe your childish manipulations is fascinating to me.

Lots of dumbass liars online, but a person who is decently educated, semi-articulate and average or better intelligence while also completely deluded about their ability to trick people catches my eye as an Abbie Normal. Abbie Normals are interesting because I like seeing what makes them tick. What their limitations are. When they begin to repeat themselves.

Only because I find you interesting, Sybil:

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not quite. He believes that fascism is any corporation, especially if a corporation sells products internationally.

He gave me a different impression but he's whacked and there's no reasoning with him.

I truly do love it when you talk to yourself, Sybil. It's very revealing. Not just the delusion that you believe others are falling for it, but what you choose to talk about. Which parts you snip, How you respond, etc.

IMO, your behavior to your socks is how you'd like others to behave toward you. Oddly, you rarely treat other people with the same respect you give to your socks. To me, this indicates both your narcissism but, worse, your lack of respect for others. Your willingness to see them as less than yourself. Less than human.