Sushi?

cockbeard wrote:

Once again though we're veering into cult of reason territory. Stop being scared to ask questions, stop trying to be "right", and definitely stop demonising someone who does ask questions

This is exactly why Dawkins was a dangerous, irresponsible man who set the debate on religion back years, served only to divide and anger rather than create debate

Bollocks. Both about dawkins (get off twitter tho & stop talking about rape, dick), & about motivations for people posting. I have taken an aggressive stance, & I'll grant you its potentially not constructive, but plenty of people in here have clearly posted in good faith and answered dynamites questions.

He's then cherry picked the ones he's liked & chosen to engage with, and ignored everything that he doesn't like.

To then throw hands up and call people fanatics & hide behind "I'm just asking questions" is fucking weak sauce & I'm calling it.

It's PRECISELY the tactics used to push:

- creationism
- smoking not being a health risk
- anti-vax

Teach the controversy! Ffs.

dynamiteReady wrote:

monkey wrote:

I thought that was a weird position for a bunch of almost scientists to hold.

And I'm the ignorant one, am I? Don't worry. Unlike some of your other instances of collective hounding, I won't be taking it all as seriously, but I am paying attention... The same names always appear to apply the same behaviour, across all subjects.

I'm sorry but I haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Facewon wrote:

I have taken an aggressive stance, & I'll grant you its potentially not constructive, but plenty of people in here have clearly posted in good faith and answered dynamites questions. He's then cherry picked the ones he's liked & chosen to engage with, and ignored everything that he doesn't like. To then throw hands up and call people fanatics & hide behind "I'm just asking questions" is fucking weak sauce & I'm calling it.

Yes, he is not "just asking questions" but is instead looking for the very specific answers he wants.

monkey wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

monkey wrote:

I thought that was a weird position for a bunch of almost scientists to hold.

And I'm the ignorant one, am I? Don't worry. Unlike some of your other instances of collective hounding, I won't be taking it all as seriously, but I am paying attention... The same names always appear to apply the same behaviour, across all subjects.

I'm sorry but I haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Heh, he's starting a shitlist; because obviously it's not him, so it must be everyone else.

I presume you're calling me ignorant for either 

a) not already knowing the precise formulation of the climate change position of a professional body for American geologists. In which case, jesus christ. 

Or 

b) Referring to geographers as almost scientists which I suppose I should clarify in the event that's being interpreted as a dismissal of them. Geographers are absolutely fine, produce lots of reliable work, always liked the subject at school, total respect for them and all the rest of it, but they work in an interdisciplinary field that incorporates non-scientific elements as well as scientific ones. So it was just short hand for referring to them as people with scientific leanings, and it was surprising they take that view.

cockbeard wrote:

Once again though we're veering into cult of reason territory. Stop being scared to ask questions, stop trying to be "right", and definitely stop demonising someone who does ask questions

This is nonsense. The entire scientific method is about asking questions, but crucially, it's also about paying attention to the answers. Ignoring mountains of evidence because they do not fit your view and then continuing to question the conclusions of those whose job it is to weigh up that evidence are actions that should be challenged.

30 quid for 900g of peadust incl. delivery. I will eat about 120g a day, so let's say that's a weeksworth.

Do people think £30 a week for 'meat' alone is within the tolerances of 1st world low-incomers? I'm not one, so I ask.

Brooks wrote:

30 quid for 900g of peadust incl. delivery. I will eat about 120g a day, so let's say that's a weeksworth. Do people think £30 a week for 'meat' alone is within the tolerances of 1st world low-incomers? I'm not one, so I ask.

No way. That's like a entire weekly shopping bill for a lot of people. 

Me too actually, but I pride myself in how low I can get the bill each week while still buying things like beer and meat.

dynamiteReady wrote:

monkey wrote:

b) Referring to geographers as almost scientists which I suppose I should clarify in the event that's being interpreted as a dismissal of them. Geographers are absolutely fine, produce lots of reliable work, total respect for them and all the rest of it, but they work in an interdisciplinary field that incorporates non-scientific elements as well as scientific ones. So it was just short hand for referring to them as people with scientific leanings, and it was surprising they take that view.

Great. But now I wonder about your classification of what is scientific, and what is unscientific.  Anyway, the relationship between geology, and climatology? Isn't one just a subset of the other? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle This is why I'm a little angry about some of the views here. I'm accused of twisting facts for posting them, and asking questions about them, but others can get away with denigrating whole branches of established sciences, 'just because', and no-one bats an eyelid.

Like I said, it wasn't my intention to denigrate them. I can't be any clearer about what I meant.

monkey wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

monkey wrote:

Sushi?

You have to fry shrimp...

That was a suggestion to Brooks btw. You're grabbing the wrong end of the stick more often than a.... ....erm.... I'm going to go with blind hockey player.

Noticed how I haven't bothered with the hockey stick thing?
That's statistical analysis.

Not science.

And we all know what they say about statistics...

Brooks wrote:

30 quid for 900g of peadust incl. delivery. I will eat about 120g a day, so let's say that's a weeksworth.

Do people think £30 a week for 'meat' alone is within the tolerances of 1st world low-incomers? I'm not one, so I ask.

Over a month that would come to more than half of my shopping budget (which also has to include cleaning products, household items (lightbulbs and shiz) and toiletries). I'm fairly low income but not totally scraping the barrel.

If I can mix protein powder with fat and a berroca it should save cash.

Well yeah, hence I try to get in 100g of protein daily. The rest is basically fat, token amount of carbs, bags of salad.

Ftr my current spend on comestibles is £20 a day.