4 ms·

Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid. Gosh, I wonder what would happen if the author

Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid. Gosh, I wonder what would happen if the authors of Nature papers had to reveal their political affiliations on every article they published. Can I discount someone's argument just because they support the Green party? I don't agree with creationism in any form, but that doesn't mean that someone who does is wrong when they quote Al Gore, post a picture of a graph, or try exercising critical thinking about a topic.

Goronmon 11y ago
Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid. Not by itself, but combine those views with the fact that the source used from the blog post is the Daily Mail, I'm comfortable ignoring the rest of the content.
orf 11y ago
> Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid No, him saying the Earth is between 5,700 and 10,000 years old makes what he's say invalid. Him saying evolution is rubbish and believing word for word an ancient religious text condoning all kinds of crazy stuff makes what he says invalid. If you actually stop for a second and start critically thinking rather than just repeating it in sentences as if it's some kind of defence it's fairly obvious that your source doesn't pass any kind of litmus test for scientific credibility. I judge some of his views on par with thinking Obama is a space lizard, but you appear to be saying "hey let's conveniently ignore all that other crazy stuff he says because his views match mine and CRITICAL THINKING". Practice what you preach. Edit: fuck me sideways he sources the Daily Mail, what a train wreck. Are you kidding me? This is too perfect, you can't actually believe this guys anything other than just another crazy fundamentalist can you? Take a hard long look at what you read please, if you want to post that crap somewhere I would suggest sending it to your fellow "critical thinkers" and not HN.

Goronmon 11y ago

Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid. Not by itself, but combine those views with the fact that the source used from the blog post is the Daily Mail, I'm comfortable ignoring the rest of the content.

orf 11y ago

> Yes, different underlying religious and political views than mine of the author make what they're saying invalid No, him saying the Earth is between 5,700 and 10,000 years old makes what he's say invalid. Him saying evolution is rubbish and believing word for word an ancient religious text condoning all kinds of crazy stuff makes what he says invalid. If you actually stop for a second and start critically thinking rather than just repeating it in sentences as if it's some kind of defence it's fairly obvious that your source doesn't pass any kind of litmus test for scientific credibility. I judge some of his views on par with thinking Obama is a space lizard, but you appear to be saying "hey let's conveniently ignore all that other crazy stuff he says because his views match mine and CRITICAL THINKING". Practice what you preach. Edit: fuck me sideways he sources the Daily Mail, what a train wreck. Are you kidding me? This is too perfect, you can't actually believe this guys anything other than just another crazy fundamentalist can you? Take a hard long look at what you read please, if you want to post that crap somewhere I would suggest sending it to your fellow "critical thinkers" and not HN.