Thats, very distinctly, not a denial of troll-like behaviour.

An important distinction.

The argument they were making is poor.

However, moral conviction has no bearing on objective correctness.

Edit: If it did, any voluntarily suicide bomber would be objectively correct.

I'd address the other point but It doesn't sound like you're open to viewpoints that are not your own.( and don't seem to understand what objective truth actually entails )

Edit Edit:

"Cowardly Downvotes Are Bad" is another example of something that is subjective.

I believe it to be true, but that belief doesn't change the the fact that that statement isn't objectively correct. ( as in, provably true for everyone regardless of their perspectives or beliefs )

That's a lot of ad hominem for someone so vocally against it.

If your entire argument is "look at this mistake that was made, why did we trust scientists in the first place?" (with some personal attacks thrown in) you're going to struggle to find a genuine conversation.

Scientists are people too, they aren't a homogeneous pool of unassailable morals/ethics and correctness.

People fuck up, constantly, poor decisions and mistakes abound.

The whole idea of the scientific method is iteration towards success, if everyone always made the correct decisions there would be no need for iteration.

It's not an excuse for shitty work, science as a whole has a bunch of problems that urgently need addressing, but it is an explanation that allows for more nuance than "scientists stupid, hur hur".

Given your other answers so far I'm not expecting you to actually respond to this in good faith , i'm putting it out there mainly for me.

I can save you some time and say that if this is the calibre of response you normally provide, you should probably just block me, you are almost certainly not going to like interacting with me (or reading anything i write).

You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.

All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.

You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way.

You have responded..sort of, yes, good faith is debatable

My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.

Again, citation on the "reference to something not previously brought up" ?

You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.

Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.

I've been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it's not a test, i genuinely want an example.

And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could...just read the history.

You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.

Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.

The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.

And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.

Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.

I've stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.

For clarification my stance is:

• God's design (which you didn't mean?, so that's fine) and what is "natural" are a poor foundation for a shared framework of morals and ethics because they are subjective.
• Harm reduction includes psychological harm, to exclude that is poor reasoning.
• It's possible to use body modification as an expression of self without having an underlying mental illness or psychological issue.
• Counting Crows big yellow taxi is superior musically but Joni Mitchell’s original is better for the feels.
• Providing a whole-ass book, or series of ideologies instead of an actual position is poor conversational technique, especially if you don't even specify if it represents your position.

Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it's when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.

Here is a summary (of my understanding) :

• You seem to have close to fundamentalist ^0^ (in my opinion) beliefs about what people should and shouldn't be doing wrt body modifications. ^1^
• Your stance is that you don’t push this on others ^2^
• You stated "I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design." with no other context clues but later ( a few replies later ) said that isn't what you meant. ^3^
• You think a lot of body modifications are due to underlying mental illness or psychological issues.
• Your boundary is restoring medical function/harm reduction is fine, anything else is not.
  • When asked if psychological harm reduction counts, you have provided no actual position except for a reference to a book.
• You have your opinions on what constitutes "natural", when asked about a contradiction in clarification your response was:
  • Cite a definition with no explanation as to why it was needed
  • Ignore the contradiction entirely
  • Claim i was using a special definition without specifying what you thought it was.

`

• ^0^ See the previous reply about the definition of fundamentalism I’m using here
• ^1^ Note the words in bold, they are important.
• ^2^ I don't necessarily believe that but I’d have no way to prove anything either way, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
• ^3^ Same as ^2^

and I’m saying it's not a common occurrence, intentional or not.

Guns aren't common enough in the UK for "they've got a gun" to be a go-to for the police.

"They've got a knife" or "They’ve got a sign the ruling class don't want people to see" are more likely.

As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it's by no means the norm.

Unobvious enough that i had to ask for clarification, but that could just be me.

Here is the equivalent of the other side :

https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/the-latest-data-shows-speed-cameras-dont-save-lives

I'm assuming you're looking at the title and that it's from a website called "carexpert" and assuming that it's not entirely unbiased.

As well you should be.

I'm not espousing centrism, i'm expecting some basic citation vetting.

The server CPU's are called epyc and they are powerful, but not in the same way.

Server CPU's are geared to different types of workloads but if you built a desktop workstation with decent one it would be still be a beast.

I wasn't arguing that the server CPU's aren't powerful, i was saying that the latest ryzen desktop cpu was something I'd personally consider to also be powerful.

The threadrippers are also up there in terms of power, but the OP was specifically talking about ryzen.

[Attenborough voice]

"And here we see a wild false equivalency in it's natural habitat. Camouflaged and perfectly suited to it's environment, it goes unnoticed by many"

"Some humans have started recording the mating calls of this and other closely related cousins in the misinformationum ridiculosus family in hope of harnessing the power of the sounds for themselves, results have been varied"

It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.

In this case i can't see any big red flags.

The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn't an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.

To be clear, I'm not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people's backs up.

It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.

I don't think it's what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as "Somebody didn't accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn't even though i was clearly correct, this is grating"

Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.

Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.

That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith "debaters" around, but just because you consider something petty doesn't mean the other person does.

This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it's worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.

Like, I don’t even want to argue.

So don't, if you don't want to continue the interaction then don't reply.

Meaning what, it’s also me?

Possibly, yes.

lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?

Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.

Again, to be clear i don't mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.

"Stop acting like a child" is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.

However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.

"by a wide variety of men"

I imagine your ability to definitely determine parentage, i'm assuming through observation and research, got you moved to somewhere your observational talents could be better employed ?

No point in wasting that kind of talent on the streets fighting the statistically high percentage of 15 year old bodybuilding thugs and their mothers.

OK, so let's assume that's a good faith literal interpretation.

Let's try it this way.

Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren't generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.

I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.