Community >> View Post
·
Post By
FreeKyle

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
In Reply To
The Silver Surfer

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: Yes it did
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 at 12:26:40 pm EST (Viewed 261 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Yes it did
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 at 09:36:43 am EST (Viewed 238 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    It perfectly matches my scientific prediction: democrats are unethical and this will continue to be observable in nature.


First of all, that is not a scientific prediction. When predictions are scientific, the scientific method is used

You don't seem to be offering any evidence that you did that.


Also, while I don't agree with getting rid of the Senate, wanting to change how the government works is not inherently unethical.

From Webster's English Dictionary, the primary definition of ethics:

A set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values.


The existence of the Senate is neither moral or immoral, it simply is, so as long as a desire to get rid of the Senate is consistent, there is nothing unethical about the statement.

If they disagree with you and I, and believe the Senate does more harm than good, and hold that position no matter what, they are sticking to their ethical base.

The Constitution can be changed, there is even a word for it... amending. This is an option because being in The Constitution does not automatically make it ethical, only legal. The point is that you can go back and reevaluate, and see what society believes over time. This is where the concept of the "living document" applies.

All you really did was show that you don't know what the word ethics means or what a makes a theory scientific.

This is the second time on this board I have agreed with you on the basic premise, but could not help but scratch my head at how you clearly are not based on principle... or ethics... but hate for the other side. IN a manner more in line with a sports team, than a real contest of ideas for how the society should be run.

By the way, save yourself some time, and don't bother responding. The fact that 2/3 of your post were things you did not understand (I do believe it matches what you thought) tells me that reading it would not be worth my time.


Scientific Method:

1. Make an observation. - Democrats are unethical.
2. Ask a question. - Is this behavior repeatable?
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. - They are unethical, and if I post a worrisome anti-government position, they will endorse it.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. - They will endorse the worrisome anti-government position.
5. Test the prediction. - Post the worrisome anti-government position online and see what they say.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. - Result: They sided with the worrisome anti-government position. This will continue to be observed in nature.

By the way, I thought you preferred to be private. What happened?


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software