Hello everyone.
So I've got huuuuuuge problems trying to talk with TECSHARE whatever the topic is about. It seems to me that this member isn't able to think or read so I'd like to have your opinion voiced out, maybe if enough people are actually explaining him that he's contradictory he will start reading for good.
After all it seems he's the only member in the P&S section that keeps being moderated for his posts, there might be a reason for that no?
First thing first he seems like someone really logic and facts focus:
What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant.
I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked for proof. At least a micron of empirical data to support your claims. So far I have seen nothing of this nature presented by you.
"Thinking outside the box" and being assured of your position at the pinnacle of human evolution is not a substitute for logic.
(I especially love this one)
For TECSHARE what you believe or think is irrelevant, the only things that matter are the pure objective facts.
He's also really into logical fallacies stuff. He has a wide knowledge about all kinds of logical fallacies and points out anything you do that can be somewhat interpreted as a logical fallacy:
Now that you have used your red herring distraction card, what about the rest of the criticism? Or are you just going to run from that too?
Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry
And he definitely doesn't like socialits and communists:
Just as predicted the Socialists and Commies roll in and try to take credit for everyone elses work and hijack the group and redirect it toward implementing Marxist ideologies. They are parasites and can build nothing of their own.
But what is funny is how TECSHARE contradicts himself. It's pretty tiring in the middle of the discussion because you have the impression of talking to a seven years old but after some times have passed you go back to old threads and re-read it (yes I do that, I mean that's the best way to learn something, re-reading your discussions once you're calm to see if you were wrong and were just too heat up to realize it) and you see the obvious contradictions lying here.
So here is a collection of the best contradictions of TECSHARE with some context (but all the rest will be quoted so you can see I'm not rephrasing or whatever).
Enjoy!
Thread: Capitalism is destroying usDiscussion was at first with another user were I was trying to explain and support the claim that success is mainly based on luck, no matter your skills or abilities. So the first answer is about af_newbie not about TECSHARE
You're exactly the "self-made man" example who just can't understand why people aren't succeeding.
[...]
Well no. Not at all. It's because you're smart, you worked hard, and you got LUCKY.
[...]
Was my success mine? Sure. I worked my ass off and my parents too! They sacrificed themselves for me that's for sure. I believe I'm both smart and capable and the company paying me is sure happy to do so.
But more than any of that, I was lucky.
I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck?
Thread: Why are some people still skeptical about climate change?Of course TECSHARE is a climatoskeptic. I presented Nasa graphs showing the corelation between human emission of CO2 and temperature and... Well see for yourself:
Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right?
And temperature rise is also quite obvious:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright?
You claim the link is obvious and just expect us to accept it as fact. That is not science, that is the beginnings of a cult. Might I also add, as the person pushing the anthropogenic climate change theory, the burden of proof is on you to do so, not vice versa demanding people refute your unsubstantiated claims.
Euh... Sorry? I give you an infographic giving both CO2 evolution and temperature evolution, both showing an exceptionnal increase since industrial revolution... How is that the begining of a cult?? What you accept an evidence when you see a phenomenon with both eyes otherwise it's just "unsubstantiated claimes"??
100% proof for anything doesn't exist, and no I didn't ask for it. Why don't you start by presenting ANY scientifically sound empirical data?
You skipped over a very important word within scientific method. It is empirical data. You test the hypothesis by collecting empirical data, changing a variable, and documenting more empirical data of the results. Simulations, predictions, estimations, and theories do not count as empirical data.
Yeah it seems that for him records made by the NASA aren't considered as empirical data :/
Thread: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answerAnd of course the famous
Don't speak for me. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN. END OF STATEMENT.
Then what does he do?
I see, so you are arguing Socialism/Communism COULD be good by telling us all about how great it COULD be.
Oh damned, seems like you spoke for me :/
Thread: #metoo as I say, not as I do - Bill C-51 - Sexual Assault Law In CanadaThis one is good as he started the thread saying:
So I go read the article, and doesn't find anything that looks like "guilty until proven innocent" and state it:
In YOUR article, there is NEVER written that "What is reality is this standard now forces the accused to prove their innocent in order to be able to defend their freedom."
And suddenly his claime changed a bit to be more adequate to his article, all the while explaning me how I know nothing John:
What is relevant are facts. What you THINK you understand is irrelevant. The FACT is that this will make innocent people suffer by making it more difficult to defend themselves from false accusations. It is a total debasement of foundational concepts of law.
