This statement is on the verge of being a strawman argument. The first compares science to other systems of knowledge, while the second criticizes the subjects of scientific study under a capitalist influence.
These two statements do not refer to the same thing in context.
If you’re going to ignore everything, I’ve already said, I see no reason to continue. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to enable that compulsion.
I have no horse in this race, topically speaking, but your continual return to name-calling (“Cheney Dems”, “Blue MAGA”) belies your attempt to come across as a good-faith participant in this discussion. There are people out there that think differently than you, and there always will be. Using pejoratives, reducing people you don’t know to mere “thought-terminating cliches”, is not conducive to civil discussion or persuasive dialectics.
This statement is
on the verge of beinga strawman argument. The first compares science to other systems of knowledge, while the second criticizes the subjects of scientific study under a capitalist influence.These two statements do not refer to the same thing in context.
Edit: clarity
deleted by creator
Now you’re just arguing the strawman
It’s almost like they didn’t get your point
“Almost”
deleted by creator
I very clearly explained the strawman.
Just because I pointed out that your argument is flawed doesn’t make me Maga or some kind of Trump supporter. It just means you made a bad argument.
deleted by creator
If you’re going to ignore everything, I’ve already said, I see no reason to continue. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to enable that compulsion.
deleted by creator
You coming history indicates otherwise
I have no horse in this race, topically speaking, but your continual return to name-calling (“Cheney Dems”, “Blue MAGA”) belies your attempt to come across as a good-faith participant in this discussion. There are people out there that think differently than you, and there always will be. Using pejoratives, reducing people you don’t know to mere “thought-terminating cliches”, is not conducive to civil discussion or persuasive dialectics.
Bro, what point are you actually arguing against? The person you replied to never made a point about research bureaucracy.
Google ignoratio elenchi
deleted by creator
So you agree the second statement is not really about science.
deleted by creator