Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:35 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.

It's frankly fascinating to me HS that you are handed an example of a juror, one as a member of a minority group debating the merits of a racially divided trial, that you go out of your way to make an issue of a minority member that follows the law as dictated, as opposed to what I fervently believe are your skeleton issues and desires to see minorities acting in such a manner as to consider them as "the takers" nd the instigators. Your post reflecting your position on the MSM, is not directed towards the MSM, regardless of how you would like to self-righteously portray it. You are amazed a person of minority position in this country did not follow the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton perspective and you are trying desperately to place the profligation of an improving attitude towards a capitulation in the MSM. Sorry buddy, but at times things ARE as they seem.


One journalist writes one sentence and he barfs up War and Peace on race because... THEY shouldn't care... :lol3:
Last edited by slowshooter on Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:54 am

slowshooter wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.


Your fantasies are boring.


Of course they are. I don't use the drugs you do.


And you should. :lol3:

Some people have serious drug problems. They don't use them! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:02 am

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
How can what be true... that 'Maddy' was actually able to put her bleeding heart aside and judge George based on evidence???

I love how the journalist in your article just had to classify her race as "...the only minority juror...", and felt compelled to explain that she was a Puerto Rican mother of 8, and just fresh in from Chicago. More of the main stream media having to try and define her by the color of her skin and not the content of her character.

Perhaps because in spite of the lady being 'a minority', she is able to separate her emotions from her ability to think, and maybe she doesn't have quite the bleeding heart in the first place (you know, a conservative...).

I know, I know, it's probably got your little mind all twisted up knowing that there could be a minority out there that hasn't drank the liberal koolaid. You should pigeon hole her into the same cubby as Alan Keyes, Marco Rubio, or Walter Williams. Try to think of the trillions your president has been able to squeeze out of the working class and future generations of taxpayers for all his fantastic social engineering programs and you should stop hyperventilating in a few minutes.


It's frankly fascinating to me HS that you are handed an example of a juror, one as a member of a minority group debating the merits of a racially divided trial, that you go out of your way to make an issue of a minority member that follows the law as dictated, as opposed to what I fervently believe are your skeleton issues and desires to see minorities acting in such a manner as to consider them as "the takers" nd the instigators.


But Jim, I didn't... the journalist decided that it was important enough to their audience to define this lady by race, age, parental status, and even her last known address. Who gives a squat where she lived before she moved to FLA? Who gives a squat what her race was? Who gives a squat that she has 8 children? Who cares that she's a nursing assistant? How is that relevant to the story that she 'felt' George was guilty, but the State prosecution could not prove it?

I may have skeleton issues... but it certainly isn't about seeing minorities as 'takers' and 'instigators'. I see lazy people taking from the system, but where I'm from that's way more likely to be white folks than ‘minorities, and the perps in the crime logs up here have way more anglo sounding names than not. If I have a bias, it’s directed more towards the whole druggie culture, not a particular skin color.

And 40+ years after MLK said he hoped for a day when all people would be judged by the content of their character (their actions) and not by the color of their skin, why did the journalist feel compelled to make what... 20%-30% of this article about defining this lady demographically? Perhaps it's more of a comment on what skeleton issues the writer has about how Maddie 'should' have arrived at her verdict. The prosecution's case had nothing to go on except emotions, and yet this lady was able to separate her emotions from the facts presented to her... and came to a unanimous conclusion with 6 other Americans of various backgrounds that did not jive with what the liberal agenda defined as the 'right' verdict. I would hope that anyone, regardless of the color of their skin, would be able to do that for any of their fellow Americans when they’re on trial.

Unfortunately we have become a country of hyphenated Americans, each group looking out for ‘their’ tribe, instead of all of us living peacefully as a nation. And the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are doing everything they can to keep the hyphens there because racial division makes a living for them and keeps them relevant.
Glimmerjim wrote:Your post reflecting your position on the MSM, is not directed towards the MSM, regardless of how you would like to self-righteously portray it. You are amazed a person of minority position in this country did not follow the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton perspective and you are trying desperately to place the profligation of an improving attitude towards a capitulation in the MSM. Sorry buddy, but at times things ARE as they seem.
Jim, you’re wrong. I’m not amazed a person of ‘minority position’ did not follow the race baiter perspective, I’d like to think there are more Americans (of any and all races) that denounce the separatist hate speech of Al and Jesse (and similarly the white pride spokes persons) than the dumb ones who mindlessly believe their crap and are ready to riot and protest as soon as Al and Jesse say 'burn baby burn'.

About the only part of your comment I’d agree with is the last sentence… things ARE as they seem. The journalist in Slow’s link tried to define this lady based on the color of her skin, and tried to juxtapose what that is supposed to mean in the journalist’s leftist, race-baiting culture to her actions (the content of her character) that did not follow the journalists’ apparent philosophy of how she should have behaved (otherwise, there was no story there).



I also thought Slow’s feigned disbelief that Maddie could possibly find George innocent separate from emotion was ironic and funny on several levels.

OK HS. Kudos and appreciation of your mental ability. You have rendered the essence of the issue to a very meaningful and unemotional post and I give you my admiration for that. It is hard in this context to not let emotions enter into what you intend to be an erudite representation of an opinion, while unintendedly the emotions make it nonsensical. Good job and I will have a continual respect for your opinions from this point forward! Not that I may always agree! :lol3: :lol3: :beer:
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby beretta24 » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:40 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
beretta24 wrote:No disagreement in regarding the likely implication, but its rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and if thats what it took to sway the jury God help us. And something else help Jim.

You lost me on the last sentence beretta! Is it a comma missing, or a plea for charity for an obviously mentally deranged individual? :lol3: :lol3:

Missed at least one comma

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 4690
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ohioboy » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:16 am

slowshooter wrote:



As the law dictated.


Exactly.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:13 pm

I'm amused by people who typically deny objective morality allude to the same by suggesting that Zimmerman committed murder, but violated no law.
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Bad news new guy, once WTN has accepted you, you are automatically a world renown douche.
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 13823
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:46 pm

WTN10 wrote:I'm amused by people who typically deny objective morality allude to the same by suggesting that Zimmerman committed murder, but violated no law.

The first and most obvious response is that laws often have little connection to morality, WTN.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby slowshooter » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:48 pm

WTN10 wrote:I'm amused by people who typically deny objective morality allude to the same by suggesting that Zimmerman committed murder, but violated no law.




You can't be talking about me because I'm certainly not objective and am completely moral free :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:09 am

If there's no morality and his actions are legal, on what basis do you conclude he committed murder?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person.
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Bad news new guy, once WTN has accepted you, you are automatically a world renown douche.
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 13823
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:59 am

WTN10 wrote:If there's no morality and his actions are legal, on what basis do you conclude he committed murder?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

Emotion? As in they feel like he committed murder?
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:34 am

WTN10 wrote:If there's no morality and his actions are legal, on what basis do you conclude he committed murder?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

I understand your connection better, now, WTN. However, I don't remember anyone ever saying that there is NO morality, just subjective vs objective. That is the gist of what "they" are saying I believe. That objectively, according to the law, there is no basis for conviction on murder charges. Subjectively, however, "they" believe that the killing could have been prevented, hence forming a basis for "immoral, though legal" murder. Make any sense? I'm not sure if it does to me or not! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:24 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:If there's no morality and his actions are legal, on what basis do you conclude he committed murder?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

I understand your connection better, now, WTN. However, I don't remember anyone ever saying that there is NO morality, just subjective vs objective. That is the gist of what "they" are saying I believe. That objectively, according to the law, there is no basis for conviction on murder charges. Subjectively, however, "they" believe that the killing could have been prevented, hence forming a basis for "immoral, though legal" murder. Make any sense? I'm not sure if it does to me or not! :lol3:


The law isn't objective though. There's nothing more subjective than the law. The law used to say slavery was legal. Now it's not. The law is entirely relative to the age and the people; it's anything but objective. It's a coalesced expression of the subjective feelings of a group of people at a particular time. Nothing more.
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:Bad news new guy, once WTN has accepted you, you are automatically a world renown douche.
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 13823
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:02 am

WTN10 wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WTN10 wrote:If there's no morality and his actions are legal, on what basis do you conclude he committed murder?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

I understand your connection better, now, WTN. However, I don't remember anyone ever saying that there is NO morality, just subjective vs objective. That is the gist of what "they" are saying I believe. That objectively, according to the law, there is no basis for conviction on murder charges. Subjectively, however, "they" believe that the killing could have been prevented, hence forming a basis for "immoral, though legal" murder. Make any sense? I'm not sure if it does to me or not! :lol3:


The law isn't objective though. There's nothing more subjective than the law. The law used to say slavery was legal. Now it's not. The law is entirely relative to the age and the people; it's anything but objective. It's a coalesced expression of the subjective feelings of a group of people at a particular time. Nothing more.

I see and agree, WTN, but I guess I am saying that at any given point in time the law must attempt to be objective. The fluidity of the law seems to prove that it is, contrarily, highly subjective. Much like science, which purports itself to be the epitome of objectivity. It's been a while since I remember anyone falling off the edge of the Earth, though! :lol3:
More to your point, though, that is where the morality factor comes into focus. I would assume that the collective expressions of the concept of justice at any point in time would be based upon the moral convictions of the populace. (With many obvious anomalies and egregious divergences). If the law of the land is both subjective AND based upon the collective moral perception of the day, doesn't it suggest that morality is contemporaneously subjective?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:12 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Much like science, which purports itself to be the epitome of objectivity.
If it is not the epitome of objectivity, it is not science. Many people purport to be doing science when they are really doing propaganda.

This really is an important distinction. Scientists can and are often wrong. This is why we try to use precise words with precise meanings like theory and law with care.

It is not the fault of science if people demand that the theory of evolution be treated as a fundamental law and use acceptance as such as a litmus test for scientific integrity. They have failed in being the epitome of objectivity by doing so and are therefore not acting as a scientist but a propagandist.

And before you go off on a tangent, I believe (again choosing words precisely) that most intelligent design scientists are far from the epitome of objectivity, so that tells you what I think of them as scientists.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:25 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Much like science, which purports itself to be the epitome of objectivity.

SpinnerMan wrote: If it is not the epitome of objectivity, it is not science. Many people purport to be doing science when they are really doing propaganda.

This really is an important distinction. Scientists can and are often wrong. This is why we try to use precise words with precise meanings like theory and law with care.

I understand your distinction, Spinner, it's the connotations I am wrestling with. "Propoganda" suggests conscious intent to me, and I don't think that is the reason for most scientific "error". However, as I write this I realize I am strolling into philosphical constructs such as "fact". Is something a "fact" at a given point in time even if found to be erroneous later? If that is not the case, and a "fact is a fact" even if not currently known or accepted, how can we ever deem anything a "fact" knowing that future investigation may prove it to be false? Or are "facts" just working tools at any point in time?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:42 am

Gravity is a fact. The gravitational constant is fact. It has been proven repeatedly.

Most scientific findings are theories and a proper scientist remembers that and couches them as such. It might amaze you to find out how many scientific studies fail to find what they are looking for. This is completely acceptable to a scientist. They found the truth and fact instead of pushing for an agenda through their study. As soon as you decide what result you want and then put aside impartiality to push an agenda your into propogande. People who take scientific findings and then run with them are pushing an agenda. Most findings have to be corroborated and supported over a long period of time to be considered fact.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:52 am

Honestly, even then it's relative. It was "fact" that the earth was flat for a long, long time. "Facts" are, and always will be, regulated by the level of our knowledge. That is the part that amuses me when I get into debates with Spinner about stuff like this. Frankly, it is the height of arrogance (not on anyone here's part, just an observation) to believe that ANYTHING we "know" now is an unchanging, never-ending "fact".




Except The 50/50™, of course.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:04 pm

Gravity is not relative, or subject to question. They might rename it but it will still work the same.

Jump off a high object and you will go splat at the bottom. It is not 50 / 50 you will hit the ground.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:38 pm

Everything is subject to question. We are limited by our CURRENT understanding, and CURRENT technology, so to say that something now (yes, even gravity) is not subject to question is sort of silly. What if we find out in 238,000 years that it is actually a race of aliens who are running a reverse tractor beam on our galaxy? Sure, it sounds ludicrous, but there is nothing whatsoever that you can do to say "that's impossible", or even to temporarily rule it out. And by extension, there is nothing that you can do to say "gravity is the be-all end-all, and not subject to question.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:57 pm

It's 50/50 that aliens are running a reverse traction beam?

Gravity is absolute AT. Like it or not it is caused by the spin of the earth and a variety of other factors about the earth and it's make up. Gravity is not up for question. Again, jump off a low object and see if you fall. It has been fully measured, quantified, and proven. The Law of Gravity is just that. A law. :beer:
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby assateague » Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:15 pm

I changed it a bit, just to show you how silly that is in the grand scheme of things.


A 9th Century Astronomer wrote:It's 50/50 that aliens are running a reverse traction beam?

That the sun revolves around the earth is absolute AT. Like it or not it is caused by the spin of the earth and a variety of other factors about the earth and it's make up. The orbit of the sun is not up for question. Again, watch the sun spin around the sky. It has been fully measured, quantified, and proven. The Law of Celestial Bodies is just that. A law. :beer:
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:31 pm

I know that law. It is the law that says the less good looking you are the lower likely hood there is that you will be allowed to enter a heavenly (celestial) body at any point in your existance.

I violate this law on a regular basis. I always dated and then married way out of my league!

Care to try again? I just dropped an apple and gravity is still working. :thumbsup:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5956
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:07 pm

assateague wrote: Honestly, even then it's relative. It was "fact" that the earth was flat for a long, long time. "Facts" are, and always will be, regulated by the level of our knowledge. That is the part that amuses me when I get into debates with Spinner about stuff like this. Frankly, it is the height of arrogance (not on anyone here's part, just an observation) to believe that ANYTHING we "know" now is an unchanging, never-ending "fact".



Yep. Pretty much as I've always seen it, too.


assateague wrote: Except The 50/50™, of course.

Well, it's 50/50 whether it's fact or not, so.........hold it. I just smashed head-first into a conundrum! Let me get this straight....if it's NOT a fact that the 50/50 Rule is a fact.......I've got a headache! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:27 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Much like science, which purports itself to be the epitome of objectivity.

SpinnerMan wrote: If it is not the epitome of objectivity, it is not science. Many people purport to be doing science when they are really doing propaganda.

This really is an important distinction. Scientists can and are often wrong. This is why we try to use precise words with precise meanings like theory and law with care.

I understand your distinction, Spinner, it's the connotations I am wrestling with. "Propoganda" suggests conscious intent to me, and I don't think that is the reason for most scientific "error". However, as I write this I realize I am strolling into philosphical constructs such as "fact". Is something a "fact" at a given point in time even if found to be erroneous later? If that is not the case, and a "fact is a fact" even if not currently known or accepted, how can we ever deem anything a "fact" knowing that future investigation may prove it to be false? Or are "facts" just working tools at any point in time?

There are honest mistakes. You can be the epitome of objectivity and still be wrong. Way too many people "know" the answer they desire and seek to prove it, which is not science either, but it is not propaganda. Then there is a whole lot of propaganda such as the UCS and many others that try to label themselves as scientist to get people to buy their propaganda.

Scientists are wrong way more than they are right simple because if it were not that hard to understand, somebody would have figured it out a long time ago.

Scientists rarely use the term fact. That is more commonly a legal term.

Reproduceability is a big part of science. That's why whenever a scientist won't share the raw data, it is a huge red flag. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons, but you NEVER take another scientists word for it. You go reproduce the results. Things that are reproduced many many times will always be facts. The interpretation of those facts may changes, which may be a distinction without a difference.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15202
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:12 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: Things that are reproduced many many times will always be facts. The interpretation of those facts may changes, which may be a distinction without a difference.

I was pretty much with ya till this one, Spinner. Just the concept of spontaneous mutation proves that a "fact' is not immutable. Now....is it a fact that there are no facts, Grasshopper? :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 9814
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests