Exactly right, Joe.

The decompose into dirt. So put them where dirt already is, don’t leave them where dirt is not.

O Foruna plays

Considering it’s Boeing and the same thing happened to the last one a few years ago… I mean, it’s not rocket science.

When people make me play Monopoly, I always take the housing shortage strategy for the guaranteed fast win. People hate me, but rules are rules, and I hate that game.

He’s probably earned enough to keep the farm afloat for another 12 months or so.

Call me pretentious, but I genuinely forget about Facebook and that lots of people still care about it.

In this context, you use the term “belief” very well.

This post is discussing the phenomenon of people thinking that science is objective and rigid when in reality it is anything but.

It’s not though. That’s all you.

The irony of such a statement…

I don’t want to deflate your assumption, but “Science is pure objectivity and truth”.

The assumption you introduced just added another layer on by bringing Marxism into it. And here’s the thing with that fallacy; you may be very right! But, it’s got nothing to do with the original statement anymore. It’s just going down tangents of a tangent that should be explored under their own initiative, not the blanket of “science”.

It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.

The entire post itself—and your reply—is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to any -ism. All isms are human-made. If they are 100% true, they are not isms.

Edit: Sorry, I’m drunk af, so probably you are right…maybe… At least in my mind, I’m just reading Statement B as literally as Statement A and therefore can’t see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using “science”. It’s bias. That’s very unscientific.

This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.

This could be done with any combination of…

“Under capitalism, <random thing> is…”
“Under <random ism>, science is…”

They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.

I.e. It’s an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.

Unless, of course, “that’s the joke” and I’m just that dumb.

Edit: I’m not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that’s what science be and anything else isn’t science, it’s just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.

I hear lyrebirds in Australia mimic what sounds like human noises sometimes and it’s weird.

It’s rare and isn’t as “spot on” as documentaries make it out to be, but when it happens it’s always been when rock climbing in an area for most of the day and sometimes one comes along. They seem to pick up on the noises hikers and climbers make in those areas, which is mostly talking, laughing, cheering, etc. But like, it sounds nothing like another human, but you know that’s what it’s heard because it sounds like humans in the distance, just 10-20m away. Then they mix in random bird calls and it’s fun to guess each bird it’s trying to be.

It’s kind of surreal; certainly interesting. Terrible distraction when you’re supposed to be belaying someone who’s halfway up a cliff 🤣

That’s exactly how it felt. Like her imagination had daydreamed the scene long enough, it was time to put it out to the universe and be approached by all those agents and producers crammed in the commuter carriage of the inner south line.

I’ve been stuck on a train with a girl wearing headphones and singing along to Savage Garden. We all suffered.

She was even shutting her eyes tight and doing these ones…

If you’ve ever listened to just the vocals of a song without music, it was that, but also awfully off-key because she, of course, could not hear herself. Obnoxiously, I think she thought she was putting on a performance we were all impressed by. No one was impressed.

Possibly. People that have allergic reactions to venomous stings can see it for multiple insects, though it’s not common. The only way to know is testing, by whacking a stick on the nests of different wasp species and taking note if any make you anaphylactic. If you’re all good, you can be more assured it’s just bees, but nothing’s 100% certain until you aggravate insects with a stick and test.

If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be relaxing, I’d be doing shit that might have me enjoy relaxing later. Relaxing when not needing to relax is just making excuses for slothfulness lol

I dunno. Todd could be exaggerating…

reads reaponse

Yep, Todd probably was entertained.

There is too much to cover here.

As I said earlier, you clearly have minimal alignment of the primary understandings most others have. For starters, it’s clear you don’t even understand the premise of NATO.

This is like me projecting opinions about cars when I think they’re made of wood and drawn by horses.

You’re either a troll or you’re peaking on the Dunning-Kruger graph based on some obscure and narrow-scoped details you may have garnered. It’s so small picture and fundamentally flawed or entirely untrue.