Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

smltwnrckr

Officially a PhD candidate

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Are you seriously digging in to this right now? This is weak ass even for a rad dude like you. 

Seriously, walk away.

 

Thinking you can discuss a topic like the environment without a science background is weak.

Your responses without any substance are weak.

This is +++++ign hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

 

Thinking you can discuss a topic like the environment without a science background is weak.

Your responses without any substance are weak.

This is +++++ign hilarious.

Damn blues, do they let you stay in the library all night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

 

Thinking you can discuss a topic like the environment without a science background is weak.

Your responses without any substance are weak.

This is +++++ign hilarious.

This thread speaks for itself re: who's weak.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

 

Thinking you can discuss a topic like the environment without a science background is weak.

Your responses without any substance are weak.

This is +++++ign hilarious.

you can be an art historian without being picasso... this is a weird ass take

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, happycamper said:

you can be an art historian without being picasso... this is a weird ass take

Even an art historian has a chemistry background since they need to gain understanding of the pigments and media used.  Not even counting that Art History is a very simple subject compared to the environment.

 

There is no way you can understand any part of the environment without a significant science background.   In fact even those people with serious credentials like meteorologists with a physics education only deal with small portions of the environment.  Or biologists who are experts in fish or Big game.   Neither of which would claim to be environmental experts because unlike @smltwnrckr they have the education to understand what they don't understand.

An environmental history degree without a background in science would be like an engineer who couldn't add and subtract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Even an art historian has a chemistry background since they need to gain understanding of the pigments and media used.  Not even counting that Art History is a very simple subject compared to the environment.

Okay, but blues, you can learn that by... reading. Universities are not the only repositories of knowledge, they're just the most efficiently set-up for mass education. 

11 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

There is no way you can understand any part of the environment without a significant science background.   In fact even those people with serious credentials like meteorologists with a physics education only deal with small portions of the environment.  Or biologists who are experts in fish or Big game.   Neither of which would claim to be environmental experts because unlike @smltwnrckr they have the education to understand what they don't understand.

An environmental history degree without a background in science would be like an engineer who couldn't add and subtract.

Blues, for one, he's literally studying history. He knows what happened. You might have had to be a genius to predict the housing crash in 2008 but you sure as hell don't have to be one to point out factors that caused it. For that matter, your analogy is totally off. People without engineering degrees absolutely can become engineers; many states have a path for it established. It requires a minimum amount of experience and of passing the same tests, but people do it. That pretty much invalidates your strange "only science degrees give even an iota of scientific understanding" criticism you seem to have developed solely to dog one of the few members of the board still willing to call out your bullshit.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

Okay, but blues, you can learn that by... reading. Universities are not the only repositories of knowledge, they're just the most efficiently set-up for mass education. 

Blues, for one, he's literally studying history. He knows what happened. You might have had to be a genius to predict the housing crash in 2008 but you sure as hell don't have to be one to point out factors that caused it. For that matter, your analogy is totally off. People without engineering degrees absolutely can become engineers; many states have a path for it established. It requires a minimum amount of experience and of passing the same tests, but people do it. That pretty much invalidates your strange "only science degrees give even an iota of scientific understanding" criticism you seem to have developed solely to dog one of the few members of the board still willing to call out your bullshit.

So you can become an engineer without knowing how to add and subtract?

Who knew!  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I didn't say anything about "science degrees", I said you needed a "background in science", which of course by far the easiest way to get such a thing would be by getting a science degree as you assumed I said.

 

Most of the people including I suspect you, have no idea what caused the housing crash in 2008 and the media who has reported on it, certainly have no clue.   Most of the reporting has been stuck in political bias and filtered through that lens.  With the aim of ignoring the acts of one side or the other that they want to benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bluerules009 said:

So you can become an engineer without knowing how to add and subtract?

Who knew!  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I didn't say anything about "science degrees", I said you needed a "background in science", which of course by far the easiest way to get such a thing would be by getting a science degree as you assumed I said.

I mean, that's not really true. It's the easiest way for thousands of people with a range of self-motivation, focus, and direction to get a background in science. An individual person with a goal can pretty easily outpace a university student, it just takes more individual work. And yeah. You can absolutely start from essentially zero as a drafter and learn everything you need to know outside of school - the only paper trail there is to follow is years worked and then passing the FE/PE. 

Just now, bluerules009 said:

Most of the people including I suspect you, have no idea what caused the housing crash in 2008 and the media who has reported on it, certainly have no clue.   Most of the reporting has been stuck in political bias and filtered through that lens.  With the aim of ignoring the acts of one side or the other that they want to benefit.

Uh huh. Yes, blues, despite your protestations that only people with a science background can get history degrees, you are special and everything you talk about, you know about.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I mean, that's not really true. It's the easiest way for thousands of people with a range of self-motivation, focus, and direction to get a background in science. An individual person with a goal can pretty easily outpace a university student, it just takes more individual work. And yeah. You can absolutely start from essentially zero as a drafter and learn everything you need to know outside of school - the only paper trail there is to follow is years worked and then passing the FE/PE. 

Uh huh. Yes, blues, despite your protestations that only people with a science background can get history degrees, you are special and everything you talk about, you know about.

You don't read "Silent Spring", and become an environmental expert.  If he has a background in science as I stated above, i withdraw my criticism, but he obviously doesn't.    If Someone can't add and subtract they can't become an engineer in anything more than the "historical engineer", category because of you put it in the school of history you need no background education to call yourself an expert.  Just because you read an AP article on the housing crisis doesn't make you an expert on even someone who has a clue about the 2008 housing decline.  You are very boring.

 

If you can't respond intelligently and keep having to distort my statements, then just don't respond.  This isn't even worth the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You don't read Silent Spring and become an environmental expert.  If he has a background in science as I stated above, i withdraw my criticism, but he obviously doesn't.    If Someone can't add and subtract they can't become an engineer in anything more than the "historical engineer", category because of you put it in the school of history you need no background education to call yourself an expert.

Blues, again, you're not making an intellectually honest or even intelligible argument. Someone without formal schooling can absolutely become an engineer - and I informed you that there is a formal mechanism in place to license those people. Someone without formal schooling can absolutely be scientifically literate. Your argument essentially discounts the possibility of men like Faraday. Your central thesis appears to be that it is impossible to be scientifically literate without a degree in science - something that is ludicrous on its face and puts far more value on a BS than is really merited. You follow this up with the idea that a history degree without apparently a BS in geology is like "becoming an engineer without being able to add or subtract", a comparison that is even more ludicrous on its face. I explicitly stated a reasonable comparison and how, with that comparison, your central thesis is invalidated.

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

If you can't respond intelligently and keep having to distort my statements, then just don't respond.  This isn't even worth the time.

It was never worth your time to be so stupidly spiteful.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Blues, again, you're not making an intellectually honest or even intelligible argument. Someone without formal schooling can absolutely become an engineer - and I informed you that there is a formal mechanism in place to license those people. Someone without formal schooling can absolutely be scientifically literate. Your argument essentially discounts the possibility of men like Faraday. Your central thesis appears to be that it is impossible to be scientifically literate without a degree in science - something that is ludicrous on its face and puts far more value on a BS than is really merited. You follow this up with the idea that a history degree without apparently a BS in geology is like "becoming an engineer without being able to add or subtract", a comparison that is even more ludicrous on its face. I explicitly stated a reasonable comparison and how, with that comparison, your central thesis is invalidated.

It was never worth your time to be so stupidly spiteful.

Still dishonestly distorting I see.  

Where exactly did  I say someone without formal schooling can't be an engineer?  Or can't have a background in science?

Please link my quote.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Still dishonestly distorting I see.  

Where exactly did  I say someone without formal schooling can't be an engineer?  Or can't have a background in science?

Please link my quote.

 

 

 

On 12/3/2019 at 4:29 PM, bluerules009 said:

So a remedial biology degree.

One that avoids all the science and its limitations.

A degree that isn't a BS has no science. 

On 12/3/2019 at 4:45 PM, bluerules009 said:

If you have a background in biology, physics and geology I take it all back.

Otherwise you have no qualifications to talk about the environment at all. 

I know like journalists, historians and lawyers everywhere, you think you have an education.

 

 

No other degree, or even life experience, provides scientific background

On 12/3/2019 at 8:14 PM, bluerules009 said:

There is another example of a completely unqualified person to talk about any science topic.

I am sure he can write a pretty sentence though!   HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Unqualified because no formal education in science (that you presume, anyway)

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

Even an art historian has a chemistry background since they need to gain understanding of the pigments and media used.  Not even counting that Art History is a very simple subject compared to the environment.

 

There is no way you can understand any part of the environment without a significant science background.   In fact even those people with serious credentials like meteorologists with a physics education only deal with small portions of the environment.  Or biologists who are experts in fish or Big game.   Neither of which would claim to be environmental experts because unlike @smltwnrckr they have the education to understand what they don't understand.

An environmental history degree without a background in science would be like an engineer who couldn't add and subtract.

comparing not having a BS to not being able to add or subtract; comparing no formal education in science as being scientifically illiterate to having no formal education in engineering and being unable to be an engineer

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

So you can become an engineer without knowing how to add and subtract?

Who knew!  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I didn't say anything about "science degrees", I said you needed a "background in science", which of course by far the easiest way to get such a thing would be by getting a science degree as you assumed I said.

 

Most of the people including I suspect you, have no idea what caused the housing crash in 2008 and the media who has reported on it, certainly have no clue.   Most of the reporting has been stuck in political bias and filtered through that lens.  With the aim of ignoring the acts of one side or the other that they want to benefit.

reinforcing the above

48 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You don't read "Silent Spring", and become an environmental expert.  If he has a background in science as I stated above, i withdraw my criticism, but he obviously doesn't.    If Someone can't add and subtract they can't become an engineer in anything more than the "historical engineer", category because of you put it in the school of history you need no background education to call yourself an expert.  Just because you read an AP article on the housing crisis doesn't make you an expert on even someone who has a clue about the 2008 housing decline.  You are very boring.

 

If you can't respond intelligently and keep having to distort my statements, then just don't respond.  This isn't even worth the time.

reinforcing the above

It's all you did, blues. This was an unforced error. You clowned yourself as soon as you started posting.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 

A degree that isn't a BS has no science. 

No other degree, or even life experience, provides scientific background

Unqualified because no formal education in science (that you presume, anyway)

comparing not having a BS to not being able to add or subtract; comparing no formal education in science as being scientifically illiterate to having no formal education in engineering and being unable to be an engineer

reinforcing the above

reinforcing the above

It's all you did, blues. This was an unforced error. You clowned yourself as soon as you started posting.

Still waiting for you to link where i said you needed a degree?

Dishonesty looks really bad on you.

You did just link several times I stated you needed " a background in science".   No where did I limit that to a degree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tools' gonna tools, no matter what.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Rachael Carson wasn't a historian. I believe she was a biologist.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is never a need to defend against Bluetools' bloviating, and in fact when he starts going off on someone like he is here it can usually be read as an argument for the veracity of the argument he's raging against.

But for the record, environmental history doesn't claim to be a science field, and environmental historians don't claim to be scientists. It is a just sub-field of history that studies the relationships between people and their environments, how both change over time, and how those changes impact both. Historians study people, always.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Leave it to tools to shit all over someone's accomplishment because of his bizarre beliefs about education.

I dunno, if tools shits on something it almost makes that thing seem more legit.

I enjoy when poster post the occasional life event, so I try to contribute. I hope he tells whoever posts the next baby pic that they have a liberal moron racist baby.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...