Opinion Candace Owens says she's not a Flat Earther OR a 'Round Earther' & she has left the 'cult of science'

[LangfordBarrow]

.

I went to Catholic school but my family was not religious. I believe understanding religious beliefs is a very positive part of being educated, understanding religion helps develop a grasp on the human experience which is vital imo.

I'm much more up to speed on history than I am the depth and detail retained within hard sciences. I love archeology and earth history in particular, both of which are largely guessing games with many holes to be filled in. Archeology, and disciplines like Egyptology are fascinating to me, but they masquerade as science when in reality they are fields generally comprised of art history majors who call upon scientific specialists from time to time. So while outside my scope of true in depth understanding, I appreciate reading posts like yours about the cosmos.

One thing that I love about science is that it, by its very nature, is evolutionary. One thing I love about history is that it is often the greatest teacher...and very often it reminds us that all the smartest folks from the past, with all their amazing ideas, are often if not most of the time eventually proven wrong, thus the nature of science always being updated and/or upgraded.

We truly are beneficiaries of being able to stand on the shoulders of giants. Accumulated learning is our greatest asset as a species.

100%. Those that fail to study history are destined to repeat it.

 

[Mack Yancy]

Right but Im referring to the guy you're trying to pit me against. He said he doesn't know me. You're trying to get him to assess my intelligence over one random statement and opinion.

You must be some level of emotionally parasocial to think someone has to 'know you' to have an opinon on the statements you make online.

Why don't you start by telling him your race like you did in those other threads, is that a good way to get familiar with an internet stranger?

What's the formality before we can have opinions on the opinions of the anonymous?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You read a nature magazine and your horizon was "expanded"? Lol, you're too much. Tell us more hippie man.

I meant Natural History, and you can laugh at me all you like, you're just a big dummy.

 

[OneOfOne]

You must be some level of emotionally parasocial to think someone has to 'know you' to have an opinon on the statements you make online.

Why don't you start by telling him your race like you did in those other threads, is that a good way to get familiar with an internet stranger?

What's the formality before we can have opinions on the opinions of the anonymous?

When he said he didn't know me I took that to mean he wasn't familiar with me as a poster. If he's not familiar with me as a poster he's probably not in a position to assess my intelligence. That's all.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You don't think I see what sneaky snakes like you do?

You are a liar, a deceiver.

But not Candace...

 

[Andy Capp]

But not Candace...

It did not take me long to throw that 2023 account onto the ignore list. Total waste of time.

 

[Andy Capp]

You claim to scientifically prove something that can't be observed or demonstrated. Its amazing that you guys claim theories about events in the distance past to be scientifically robust when none of it can ever be verified. They are just beliefs bro.

If you were the slightest bit interested in why this is not true you wouldn't make the claim in the first place.

 

[Copper Burner]

But not Candace...

No, she is not. You can see it in her face and hear it in her voice. She is a real one.

You do not have God in your life. You do not understand sincerity. You're a wandering hippie stumbling over things you cannot see.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I think a sad part of our society today is commentators are largely three camps:

Grifters - people who knowingly lie or say things they don't believe to be true to their audience for popularity and economic gain.

Biased pundits/people with economic interests: people who have their stances and provide lopsided analysis to defend it. They will omit and ignore things that go against their position, and cherry pick data even if it's a grain of sand in a bucket of contrary data, in favor of their position to "win" debates for their "side"

Truth seekers: intellectually honest and decent people who take in as much data as they can to form their views and are primarily interested in truth even if it means altering their stances over time as new data comes to light, or having to criticize both sides in a fairly weighted manner congruent with what data indicates.

There just isn't much of a market for that third group unfortunately in how our media and attention span have evolved in the information era, and having people stay the course of being boring/honest in the face of bigger paydays going to people in other camps.

We all have more data than ever available to us, yet people have, on the whole, gotten more out of touch with reality. As a society, there is a pretty big price being paid.

 

[Andy Capp]

I went to Catholic school but my family was not religious. I believe understanding religious beliefs is a very positive part of being educated, understanding religion helps develop a grasp on the human experience which is vital imo.

I'm much more up to speed on history than I am the depth and detail retained within hard sciences. I love archeology and earth history in particular, both of which are largely guessing games with many holes to be filled in. Archeology, and disciplines like Egyptology are fascinating to me, but they masquerade as science when in reality they are fields generally comprised of art history majors who call upon scientific specialists from time to time. So while outside my scope of true in depth understanding, I appreciate reading posts like yours about the cosmos.

One thing that I love about science is that it, by its very nature, is evolutionary. One thing I love about history is that it is often the greatest teacher...and very often it reminds us that all the smartest folks from the past, with all their amazing ideas, are often if not most of the time eventually proven wrong, thus the nature of science always being updated and/or upgraded.

We truly are beneficiaries of being able to stand on the shoulders of giants. Accumulated learning is our greatest asset as a species.

When it comes to theories of physics, that is especially true. The theory of relativity is never ever going to be judged to be just plain wrong, thrown out, and replaced by something completely different. Every testable prediction it has ever made has borne out. To the best of our knowledge it is the most accurate description of the universe.

Even so, we know it's not a complete all-encompassing description because there are missing pieces (we don't really know what goes on inside a black hole, for example) so technically it's not "right" either; it will be refined, it will become an ever-more accurate description of reality, but it will never be "wrong". The idea that it's just an un-provable theory is kind of disgusting and a slap in the face of the scientists who worked so hard to establish it, IMO.

 

[Andy Capp]

I think a sad part of our society today is commentators are largely three camps:

Grifters - people who knowingly lie or say things they don't believe to be true to their audience for popularity and economic gain.

Biased pundits/people with economic interests: people who have their stances and provide lopsided analysis to defend it. They will omit and ignore things that go against their position, and cherry pick data even if it's a grain of sand in a bucket of contrary data, in favor of their position to "win" debates for their "side"

Truth seekers: intellectually honest and decent people who take in as much data as they can to form their views and are primarily interested in truth even if it means altering their stances over time as new data comes to light, or having to criticize both sides in a fairly weighted manner congruent with what data indicates.

There just isn't much of a market for that third group unfortunately in how our media and attention span have evolved in the information era, and having people stay the course of being boring/honest in the face of bigger paydays going to people in other camps.

We all have more data than ever available to us, yet people have, on the whole, gotten more out of touch with reality. As a society, there is a pretty big price being paid.

I'm a little more optimistic than you, maybe, but still, please see my post immediately above yours.

 

[kflo]

I meant Natural History, and you can laugh at me all you like, you're just a big dummy.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I'm a little more optimistic than you, maybe, but still, please see my post immediately above yours.

Fair. I might be biased spending too much time online when I say on the whole people are less informed. But on the other hand, I do think we are moving to a post-truth society.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I actually think there was a time where Jordan Peterson was in the third camp i described. But he moved into 2. I'd put like Sam Sedar and Ben Shapiro in the second camp. Candance Owens, Alex Jones, Dinesh D'Souza are textbook cases of the first camp. On the third i would put Zizek in there.

 

[Andy Capp]

Fair. I might be biased spending too much time online when I say on the whole people are less informed. But on the other hand, I do think we are moving to a post-truth society.

I think the post truth idiots/grifters people are just louder, not greater in number.

 

[Andy Capp]

I actually think there was a time where Jordan Peterson was in the third camp i described. But he moved into 2. I'd put like Sam Sedar and Ben Shapiro in the second camp. Candance Owens, Alex Jones, Dinesh D'Souza are textbook cases of the first camp. On the third i would put Zizek in there.

Disagree. Peterson is the prime example of a shrink who needs a shrink but he found the grift instead and it satisfied his desperate ego. He's an outright cunt. If I had my way I would never have to hear his voice again unless I'd just got done kicking him in the nuts first.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I think the post truth idiots/grifters people are just louder, not greater in number.

That's true. I think bucket 2 is by far the biggest. But also the most dangerous because half-truths and omissions are the most effective propaganda.

Reading a bunch of quotes from famous people on the topic of half truths is very enlightening.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Disagree. Peterson is the prime example of a shrink who needs a shrink but he found the grift instead and it satisfied his desperate ego. He's an outright cunt. If I had my way I would never have to hear his voice again unless I'd just got done kicking him in the nuts first.

I know a lot of people feel that way, but I've heard enough of him where he actual displays actual depth of thought and coherency that puts him on a different class than others. But when the money started rolling in you could tell there were things and times he would bottle up what he was going to say because it would go against what he perceived his audience wanted to hear, without getting into obvious lying territory. He's a two for me. Obviously lot of people despise him but I don't see consider him an outright grifter.

Edit: BTW, I appreciate the line about a shrink who needs a shrink. Small sample size, but I've know a few people with ph. D's in psychology who are horribly adjusted and have horribly adjusted offspring. It's quite weird.

 

[Andy Capp]

I know a lot of people feel that way, but I've heard enough of him where he actual displays actual depth of thought and coherency that puts him on a different class than others. But when the money started rolling in you could tell there were things and times he would bottle up what he was going to say because it would go against what he perceived his audience wanted to hear, without getting into obvious lying territory. He's a two for me. Obviously lot of people despise him but I don't consider him an outright grifter.

I'm baffled by the contradiction between the two comments in bold. If he wasn't telling the truth, but instead saying what his audience wanted to hear in order to increase his earnings, isn't that dishonest and therefore a grift by definition? I recall reading where he was making 80K a month via Patreon. I mean... c'mon.

Oh, before I changed it my response to this was going to be he's a filthy cunt who cares nothing for people other than himself and he can get fucked with his bundles of cash for all I care. Just FTR. But the way it drove him to drugs may indicate he's got more of a conscience than I gave him credit for but then he deserves every bit of torture it delivered to him.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I'm baffled by the contradiction between the two comments in bold. If he wasn't telling the truth, rather saying what his audience wanted to hear, isn't that dishonest and therefore a grift by definition? I recall reading where he was making 80K a month via Patreon. I mean... c'mon.

Think of it as a debate.

Camp 1 debates in a manner that is just lie after lie after lie so that they "win" or garner enough attention that they get personal recognition

Camp 2 advocates for a side and largely only argues points in favor of their stance to win a debate. The typical spin room types.

Camp 3 isn't interested in winning, they want the correct non-biased outcome and engage in dialectic truth discovery. That is the win to them.

Peterson to me was a professor who had genuine views at one time. Then morphed into a business man of some variety, but lot of his talks and views while extremely unpopular to people on the left, have sufficient merit that I don't think he's a grifter.