SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I thought you would've been aware of my posting habits to know, that I oft relay stories depicting absurdities, stupidity and humour? This is entirely different from what you describe. But that's not your posting habit at all Your posting habit is to use ludicrous fringe stories presented to you on twitter to undermine the fight against racism, environmentalism, feminism, modern sexuality and gender-identity, or anything else you don't like or understand, in the shape of some mocking posts that ends with "haha". Edited August 31, 2020 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: He asked for a link, deeming it probably something I read on twatter, and I provided him with the names of three well known foody publications which have broached this issue (of culinary cultural appropriation) - and yes, something on twatter. He then asked for further links, to which I provided a plethora of third party media coverage. That was then deemed unacceptable because I happened to use Google Search! I asked for a link that verifies that you are right in claiming that "it is already offensive for white people to cook this food". In other words, links that document that this is a wide-spread thing and not just something a few weirdos think. And of course you failed to do so. And no, I never said there is anything wrong with googling something. Try again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: But that's not your posting habit at all Your posting habit is to use ludicrous fringe stories presented to you on twitter to undermine the fight against racism, environmentalism, feminism, modern sexuality and gender-identity, or anything else you don't like or understand, in the shape of some mocking posts that ends with "haha". There are generally few things I post in here which, if not outright comical, do not have either an amusing and/or ironic subtext or cast themselves forth for ridicule. ''Haha'' I find preferable to your ball heads. Stylistic choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 Just now, DieselDaisy said: There are generally few things I post in here which, if not outright comical, do not have either an amusing and/or ironic subtext or cast themselves forth for ridicule. There are generally few things you post in here (=this sub-forum) which aren't disingenuous attempts at mocking the fights against racist, environmentalism, feminism, modern sexuality and gender-identity, or anything else you don't like or understand, to the point of you having degenerated to just a laughable troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: There are generally few things you post in here (=this sub-forum) which aren't disingenuous attempts at mocking the fights against racist, environmentalism, feminism, modern sexuality and gender-identity, or anything else you don't like or understand, to the point of you having degenerated to just a laughable troll. You do know that if you post some atheistic drivel, somebody might bite, i.e., take the bait? You could even defend Axl Rose's underpants in guns n' roses place, and someone might be triggered enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 24 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: My point is, if you want to use links to substantiate something you say then not all kinds of links will do. It is not more difficult than that. so you must understand my policy of not even bothering to provide links then. I absolutely can not be bothered to check every link to it's scientific accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 Just now, DieselDaisy said: You do know that if you post some atheistic drivel, somebody might bite, i.e., take the bait? You could even defend Axl Rose's underpants in guns n' roses place, and someone might be triggered enough? Yes, I am aware of all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: There are generally few things you post in here (=this sub-forum) which aren't disingenuous attempts at mocking the fights against racist, environmentalism, feminism, modern sexuality and gender-identity, or anything else you don't like or understand, to the point of you having degenerated to just a laughable troll. there are not many posts in the religion thread in which you aren't disingenuously (phew, what a word) mocking christianity at any given opportunity, casually branding a whole group of people as stupid and possibly mentally retarded, to the point of trolling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 1 minute ago, action said: so you must understand my policy of not even bothering to provide links then. I absolutely can not be bothered to check every link to it's scientific accuracy. No one has asked you to check the "scientific accuracy" of anything. What is that, anyway? I was merely talking about providing links that substantiates whatever you happen to claim. Like, if Diesel makes the absurd claim that he is not allowed to eat black food any more because then black people will get offended, then providing one obscure example of a mentally ill person who shot someone because they ate black food, when asked to provide evidence simply won't do. It simply isn't enough to substantiate his much wider claim. So this has nothing to do with science, really, but simple logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, action said: there are not many posts in the religion thread in which you aren't disingenuously (phew, what a word) mocking christianity at any given opportunity, casually branding a whole group of people as stupid and possibly mentally retarded, to the point of trolling I have never said that all christians are stupid. Never. So, umh, stop lying or start understanding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I have never said that all christians are stupid. Never. So, umh, stop lying or start understanding? I distinctly remember you producing some tedious ''peer-reviewed'' gibberish on how the IQ of Christians is lower. Or was that Trump voters or Brexiteers? In fact you have probably done it to all three. Fact of the matter is you possess the arrogant elitist disdain of the metropolitan woke left for those who don't agree with you, and seek to belittle them at every opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 Just now, DieselDaisy said: I distinctly remember you producing some tedious ''peer-reviewed'' gibberish on how the IQ of Christians is lower. Oh, it is true that christians on average have lower IQ than atheists. But that doesn't mean that christians are stupid, does it? And I am sure that goes for Trump voters and people who think that UK should not be part of the EU, although I can't remember having seen any evidence for that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: And I am sure that goes for Trump voters and people who think that UK should not be part of the EU, I cannot speak for Trump voters as I don't know any but remainers are utterly thick as mince. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I cannot speak for Trump voters as I don't know any but remainers are utterly thick as mince. I am sure that is what your twitter feed tells you. But did you actually understand that even if christians generally score lower on IQ tests than atheists, that doesn't necessarily make them "stupid"? Edited August 31, 2020 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I am sure that is what your twitter feed tells you. A few minutes ago - literally as I have been talking to you - I just saw a remaniac accusing Churchill of doing something dreadful during the Boer War (during the Boer War, Churchill, a war-reporter so a fairly low personae in the British military-politico institution, was captured, imprisoned in a POW camp, and then managed to escape). Remainiacs have no historical knowledge whatsoever. They believe the EU landed on the beaches, D-Day, and liberated Europe (I have literally seen somebody claim this) haha. Thick as planks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: A few minutes ago - literally as I have been talking to you - I just saw a remaniac accusing Churchill of doing something dreadful during the Boer War (during the Boer War, Churchill, a war-reporter so a fairly low personae in the British military-politico institution, was captured, imprisoned in a POW camp, and then managed to escape). Remainiacs have no historical knowledge whatsoever. They believe the EU landed on the beaches, D-Day, and liberated Europe (I have literally seen somebody claim this) haha. Thick as planks. You really don't understand that these tweets don't represent an entire demographics Oh, Diesel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 42 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Oh, it is true that christians on average have lower IQ than atheists. study to back up this point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, action said: study to back up this point? You must specify, a ''peer-reviewed'' study? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, action said: study to back up this point? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000238?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289611000912?via%3Dihub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said: You must specify, a ''peer-reviewed'' study? I'm sure he'll provide such a study. After all, he asks the same of us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000238?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289611000912?via%3Dihub what a stupid study, but fairdoes you provided something care to show me the word "christians" in either of those two? I haven't found it. because that's what you said: christians. Not "religious belief". from someone so fixated on terminology, I expected better from you Edited August 31, 2020 by action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, action said: what a stupid study, but fairdoes you provided something care to show me the word "christians" in either of those two? I haven't find it. because that's what you said: christians. Not "religious belief". from someone so fixated on terminology, I expected better than you Let me guess, you haven't actually read the articles because you don't have access to them, do you? The second of the articles is actually limited to only christians while the first isn't. Here's a meta study for you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/ Edited August 31, 2020 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: Let me guess, you haven't actually read the articles because you don't have access to them, do you? The second of the articles is actually limited to only christians while the first isn't. Here's a meta study for you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/ how cheap, providing articles most of us don't have access to, then mocking us. Why am I wasting my time? ok then, you win. I hope you find happiness this way. 3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Here's a meta study for you: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31610740/ I don't think so mate. Like I said: you win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, action said: how cheap, providing articles most of us don't have access to, then mocking us. I honestly didn't think that you wouldn't have access. I thought it was open access. Apologies for that. Still, you lied and claimed you had read it and that there were no mentions of christians in it. Tsk tsk. Here is the pdf: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.406.9708&rep=rep1&type=pdf Winning? We didn't disagree on something, did we? You simply asked for the studies so you could immerse yourself in the studies. So no one is winning here or losing. Edited August 31, 2020 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 59 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I honestly didn't think that you wouldn't have access. I thought it was open access. Apologies for that. Still, you lied and claimed you had read it and that there were no mentions of christians in it. Tsk tsk. Here is the pdf: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.406.9708&rep=rep1&type=pdf Winning? We didn't disagree on something, did we? You simply asked for the studies so you could immerse yourself in the studies. So no one is winning here or losing. i clicked the link, and read what showed up, ie the resume. the word christians didn't feature. so how was this lying? you then asked me wether I could read the article, and I answered with the truth. Lying isn't of my habit. also, I find this a curious article, bordering on pata-physics. it's like studying wether witches can float on water, no offence. Edited August 31, 2020 by action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.