libera te tutemet ex machina, and shitpost~~

  • 339 Posts
  • 1K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 7th, 2023

help-circle































  • Okay, the definition used for global 1% is so gross and unrealistic. People earning anything like that are definitely not “rich”. Being above extreme poverty is not “rich”. The only rich which matter are people making multimillion+ USD income per year through work or assets. Who do you think buys politicians and makes the law? It’s not the secretary in NYC earning $140K per year. Let’s be fucking for real, how do I take the rest of this article seriously if they’re this much their asshole?

    My advice to writers who want to “win” for their pet politics: make sense at least. Otherwise you’ll get mad that someone called you out, and then you’ll just say they’re being a liberal or conservative, then you’ll be wrong twice. Pass the critical thinking test.




  • nifty@lemmy.worldOPtoScience Memes@mander.xyzA delicate balance
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    In a way, yes, but the key point of the scientific method is testing and validating hypotheses to confirm existing models or theories.

    Everything can be questioned in a sensible way, but if you’re going against the grain of established mountains of evidence, then you have to work just as hard to provide counter evidence or proofs.

    The burden on proof for fantastical claims is on the person or persons making it.