What you don't know can't hurt them.
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/
https://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=42460
In this thread it's been mostly subjective, yes. In the climate change threads I've refuted more in depth on multiple occasions. You've consistently ignored it. As for attacking the source: when it's someone with a suspect background and/or a history of bullshit and/or funding from the oil industry, damn straight I'm attacking the source, just like we routinely do in every other thread on this forum. Who is delivering the message is often just as important as what the message is. Context matters.Belligerent Savant ยป Fri Jul 19, 2024 10:31 pm wrote:.
You've only provided subjective commentary here. Nothing compelling or distinct from status quo narratives.
But you are free to continue to subscribe to your belief systems, of course. Keep holding on.
(and you can/will retort that I do the same, naturally. I understand the mindset.)
[Twitter is merely one of the more easily accessible mediums, but on this topic I've included links across many sources, including science papers/studies, etc -- all with appropriate qualifiers, of course. Again: attacking the 'source'/messenger rather than the message itself is one of numerous faulty/lazy tactics employed by those that prefer to wave their hands at information that counters inherent bias.]