This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Your most controversial view?

Homophobic attitudes and bigoted views should be OUTLAWED!

#It's2015

That fact that its 2015 means they should be able to say exactly what they want. its freedom of speech. just becuase u dont like it doesnt mean it should be outlawed Or that people should be punished for their views than we might as well in an islamic state. did u learn nothing from the whole je suis charlie campaign??

Reply 221

Juichiro

18

Original post by Asklepios

And as I said, some disease may carry an evolutionary benefit (like cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anaemia). The key part where people differ is whether or not homosexuality is a disorder of individual behaviour or not. Some people would say it's a 'normal variation of normal' but I would say it's 'abnormal.' If Asperger's syndrome (linked to high testosterone in utero) is a disorder then surely male homosexuality (linked to low testosterone in utero) is a disorder on the opposite end of the spectrum?

Posted from TSR Mobile

And you are a medicine student? :eek:

P.S. I fail to see how an abnormality or a deviation from the norm is necessarily a disorder.

Reply 222

Chlorophile

20

Original post by Messiah Complex

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html

But do go on.........We'll just ignore the viewpoints of someone from the greatest STEM University on the planet.

:rolleyes:

That guy is an idiot whose views on climate change are laughed at by the majority of the scientific community. I don't know what planet you're living on but the opinions of one selected individual does not negate the views of the entire global scientific establishment. I could give you the names of a hundred more reputable scientists who would directly contradict his points of views. This guy has been proven wrong on so many occasions, there's absolutely no reason to even listen to what he has to say.He's also retired, he is not active at MIT. His views are not reflective of the MIT.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 223

green.tea

18

Benedict Cumberbatch is overrated.

Reply 224

SH0405

15

Original post by Chlorophile

Yes. Your point being?

So their lives should be a misery. Surely you can't disagree?

Reply 225

SH0405

15

Original post by green.tea

Benedict Cumberbatch is overrated.

Now that is controversial.

Reply 226

Messiah Complex

3

Original post by Xin Xang

Where is the financial/ideological/political motive ? :dontknow:

Are you really this naive?

1) In a time when governments need to raise taxes on the general public as opposed to taxing their friends in big business it gives them a way of doing so
2) It's in the interests of researchers and the scientific field because they get continuous investment - I'd do the same in their position as well
3) I wouldn't say there's any ideological motive - purely political/economical/financial

Original post by Chlorophile

Right, and what exactly puts you in the position to have a say in this argument? Are you actually able to construct a logical argument as to how the science is wrong, or are you just saying this because it fits with your political views?

As a Bachelor of Science, I'm more qualified than you to have a say on such given that you haven't even been to university yet. So please do not take the personal attack approach because its getting rather tiresome, buddy. Yes, there's ample evidence to suggest the science is wrong because the raw data has been manipulated to overstate what is actually happening.

You go around this forum like you're some sort of expert on climate science when in reality there's not one climate science expert on the planet because the field has been around for what? 25-30 years at most. Even those with decades in the field are still learning every day and are not experts yet you waltz around the forum like you have all the answers and everyone else is wrong. You're also incredibly naive and believe stats cannot be manipulated for other goals.

Reply 227

Juichiro

18

Original post by Asklepios

Well yes, the key is where to draw the line between normal variation and abnormality. I edited my post, see point about Asperger's syndrome.

Posted from TSR Mobile

In my opinion, if it does not affect your/other's daily life functioning it should not be considered in a negative light.

Reply 228

Messiah Complex

3

Original post by Chlorophile

That guy is an idiot whose views on climate change are laughed at by the majority of the scientific community. I don't know what planet you're living on but the opinions of one selected individual does not negate the views of the entire global scientific establishment. I could give you the names of a hundred more reputable scientists who would directly contradict his points of views. This guy has been proven wrong on so many occasions, there's absolutely no reason to even listen to what he has to say.He's also retired, he is not active at MIT. His views are not reflective of the MIT.

No, you choose to not listen to what he has to say because you disagree with it. Stop parading around the forum as if you are some superior expert on the subject when in reality you know nothing. You're just a kid and you haven't even been to university yet.

Reply 229

SH0405

15

Religion is one of the world's greatest problems.

Reply 230

Chlorophile

20

Original post by Messiah Complex

As a Bachelor of Science, I'm more qualified than you to have a say on such given that you haven't even been to university yet. So please do not take the personal attack approach because its getting rather tiresome, buddy. Yes, there's ample evidence to suggest the science is wrong because the raw data has been manipulated to overstate what is actually happening.

You go around this forum like you're some sort of expert on climate science when in reality there's not one climate science expert on the planet because the field has been around for what? 25-30 years at most. Even those with decades in the field are still learning every day and are not experts yet you waltz around the forum like you have all the answers and everyone else is wrong. You're also incredibly naive and believe stats cannot be manipulated for other goals.

No you're not! Having a degree in a science subject doesn't make you right. You've got a piece of paper to say that you've studied a STEM subject (which for all I know, isn't even vaguely related to climate science). How on earth does that make you more knowledgeable than the entire global scientific community?

If you claim to know so much about climatology, tell me why the mainstream scientific opinion is wrong. Don't make political arguments, this isn't a political debate. Give me evidence that contradicts the prevailing scientific opinion that the observed climate change is largely anthropogenic. If you're such a great scientist then constructing a scientific argument shouldn't be too difficult.

Original post by Messiah Complex

No, you choose to not listen to what he has to say because you disagree with it. Stop parading around the forum as if you are some superior expert on the subject when in reality you know nothing. You're just a kid and you haven't even been to university yet.

Rather than reminding me about how old I am, how about you explain why I'm wrong? If I'm as stupid as you make out, that oughtn't be too difficult. This isn't you arguing against me, this is you arguing against the global scientific community. These ideas aren't mine, these are the opinions of thousands of active scientists working in this area who are infinitely more qualified than either of us to have a say on the matter.

Original post by SH0405

So their lives should be a misery. Surely you can't disagree?

I do disagree, I think that's a massive oversimplification.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 231

viddy9

16

My most controversial view is probably that being a human being, a member of the species homo sapiens, is not enough to give one a 'right' to life.

Reply 232

SH0405

15

Original post by Chlorophile

I do disagree, I think that's a massive oversimplification.

I find that amazing. Genuinely amazing.

Reply 233

Chlorophile

20

Original post by SH0405

I find that amazing. Genuinely amazing.

There are so many different factors that can lead to someone doing something. Simply to say "You've killed someone, your entire life now deserves to be written off" is pretty naive in my view. Human lives are much more complicated than that.

Reply 234

Xin Xang

14

Original post by Messiah Complex

Are you really this naive?

1) In a time when governments need to raise taxes on the general public as opposed to taxing their friends in big business it gives them a way of doing so
2) It's in the interests of researchers and the scientific field because they get continuous investment - I'd do the same in their position as well
3) I wouldn't say there's any ideological motive - purely political/economical/financial

1.Yes but surely it is their friends in big oil companies who are under a large amount of pressure from the government and general Population as a consequence of this global warming "lie".

Common sense would tell you that in the absence of this theory, oil companies would be far more prosperous.

2. So you are telling me, that scientists throughout the world, went through the effort of studying a science for many years. Only to propagate A false theory in the hope of receiving investment to further propagate this theory.

Why stop here? Why not scrutinise all scientific theories in the same manner.

I guess gravity is also lie, designed to improve the sales of aeroplanes so that everyone would be kept under the false notion that humans cannot fly?

:facepalm:

3.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 235

redferry

19

Has to be either not disliking Muslims or thinking genders should be equal.

Or at least those are the two that cause the most controversy when I air them.

Reply 236

SH0405

15

Original post by Chlorophile

There are so many different factors that can lead to someone doing something. Simply to say "You've killed someone, your entire life now deserves to be written off" is pretty naive in my view. Human lives are much more complicated than that.

Seems logical to me. Shall we agree to disagree?

Reply 237

flibber

13

Original post by Messiah Complex

Where does NASA get its money from? It doesn't take a genius to work it out. It's rather easy to manipulate data to create thousands of research jobs and get further funding. Its happened elsewhere as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

The 'urban heat island' effect noted on the graphs reminds me of the Mauna Loa graph shown by my geography teacher which purports an increase in temperature over the last X years, and that that graph is controversial for volcanoes release some CO2.

But still, while I do not claim to be an expert on science, I ask if combustion of fuels releases carbon dioxide, and use of fuels has increased since the Industrial Revolution and especially since World War 2, and if the CO2 isn't going to the atmosphere, where does it go?