A interesting tweet from a indigenous friend

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, in your little flat Earth manifesto you somehow missed answering my question I keep asking you on this thread. So I'll try again.
How many peer-reviewed papers were produced by doctors belonging to credible scientific organizations in support of lobotomies?

[chuckChuck]

A5 let us know when you want to join the discussion about science in the 21st Century! LOL

You should really try to keep up instead of posting lame arguments that have no relevance in 2023.

And you broke your own rule again that data and science that is more than a few months old is out of date!

You can read about the history of brain surgery to treat mental illness over the centuries.

Violence, mental illness, and the brain – A brief history of psychosurgery: Part 1 – From trephination to lobotomy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3640229/

[Blaithin]

Chuck is an all or nothing kind of person.

In his mind you cannot be skeptical about something, you’re either 100% for it or 100% against it.

He needs to ignore a lot in life or he’d have a life crisis almost daily trying to wrap his head around how peoples minds actually work. I guess he’s read too many papers on the evolution of brain surgery yet no papers on the evolution of understanding human psychology.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I see, so scientists in the 21st century are infallible because we already know everything there is to know, and science has reached its epitome.
But back in the dark ages of say for example, the late 20th century when scientists, using the latest knowledge and data were writing peer-reviewed papers about global cooling, they didn't have a clue what they were talking about because science was still in its infancy. That was before the science was settled, and before science was decided by the Democratic process of concensus. unlike today when they are always correct, because all scientists always agree with every other scientist.

[Blaithin]

Apparently the last 100 years of science development are the only years that count. Those are the years we need to believe in.

The solar system and gravity are fraudulent because that is science older than 100 years so they don’t count.

We’ve advanced from DDT to Neonics and these are the kinds of scientific advancements that prove science is currently at it’s pinnacle and cannot be questioned. It will never get better now.

[chuckChuck]

I have never said science and knowledge are not improving or evolving. Nor have I said science is always 100% accurate all the time.

Science is based on multiple studies showing similar or the same results from multiple sources over time.

But many on this site seem to ignore the overwhelming evidence from multiple sources regardless. And some will make every excuse possible why not, regardless of how lame and flimsy their arguments are!

[Blaithin]

There are multiple sources to support any belief. That’s why you can still run into people who are actual flat earthers.

You certainly give the impression you think it’s 100% accurate all of the time. Or at least, what you believe is 100% accurate all of the time and there’s no room for it to be in error or to become erroneous, because your sources are just fantastic.

Have you ever been wrong about something in life Chuck, and actually acknowledged it, even if it was just to yourself. Or what you have believed throughout your life has always been correct and it’s never changed, so knowledge you used 30 years ago isn't outdated now. Absolutely no information you researched and applied to life 30 years ago turned out to be negative or ineffective in any way, because all your sources were great.

You seem to want to turn everything into a “Well my sources mean I’m right and yours aren’t credible so you’re wrongl” which would lend itself to historically being “My sources were right so everything I’ve ever believed has been accurate and correct while yours weren’t credible so nothing you’ve ever known has been right.”

The only real way to prove or disprove a credible source is time and hindsight. So if, in the future, the scientific community moves away from one of the opinions you get such hard ons for on here, will you still staunchly defend them, or would you humbly say “Well my sources seemed credible at the time but I guess they weren’t that much better than the others I mocked”

Hypothetically of course since I’ve never picked up any vibes that you are capable of admitting someone else may have a better understanding of a topic than you. You’re one of those wonderful personalities that, instead of considering someone may be making sense, just throws up the “Prove it with credible sources” card to redeem your own feelings. Which makes you just a ball at all the Yu Gi Oh parties I’m sure.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There are multiple sources to support any belief. That’s why you can still run into people who are actual flat earthers.

You certainly give the impression you think it’s 100% accurate all of the time. Or at least, what you believe is 100% accurate all of the time and there’s no room for it to be in error or to become erroneous, because your sources are just fantastic.

Have you ever been wrong about something in life Chuck, and actually acknowledged it, even if it was just to yourself. Or what you have believed throughout your life has always been correct and it’s never changed, so knowledge you used 30 years ago isn't outdated now. Absolutely no information you researched and applied to life 30 years ago turned out to be negative or ineffective in any way, because all your sources were great.

You seem to want to turn everything into a “Well my sources mean I’m right and yours aren’t credible so you’re wrongl” which would lend itself to historically being “My sources were right so everything I’ve ever believed has been accurate and correct while yours weren’t credible so nothing you’ve ever known has been right.”

The only real way to prove or disprove a credible source is time and hindsight. So if, in the future, the scientific community moves away from one of the opinions you get such hard ons for on here, will you still staunchly defend them, or would you humbly say “Well my sources seemed credible at the time but I guess they weren’t that much better than the others I mocked”

Hypothetically of course since I’ve never picked up any vibes that you are capable of admitting someone else may have a better understanding of a topic than you. You’re one of those wonderful personalities that, instead of considering someone may be making sense, just throws up the “Prove it with credible sources” card to redeem your own feelings. Which makes you just a ball at all the Yu Gi Oh parties I’m sure.

I think it is time to pass the torch.
Blaithin, are you interested in a full-time job putting Chuck in his place? The pay is poor, the patient is exceedingly ungrateful and unwielding, but at at least he provides unlimited material to work with, and comes back for a new session day after day after day after day.

[Blaithin]

I think it is time to pass the torch.
Blaithin, are you interested in a full-time job putting Chuck in his place? The pay is poor, the patient is exceedingly ungrateful and unwielding, but at at least he provides unlimited material to work with, and comes back for a new session day after day after day after day.

No thanks. Some days I’m in the mood for it and he conveniently pops into one of the two threads I pay attention too, but most of the time I scroll right past his posts and don’t even read past ChuckChuck 😂 To keep hobbies enjoyable they must never become jobs!

Plus, his only other reaction besides “state your sources” is to completely ignore something that is making sense, in which case he does his favourite trait of yours, and deflects. Mainly on to you. I’m not sure I could compete with his crush on you, even if I had the flashy torch.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

No thanks. Some days I’m in the mood for it and he conveniently pops into one of the two threads I pay attention too, but most of the time I scroll right past his posts and don’t even read past ChuckChuck 😂 To keep hobbies enjoyable they must never become jobs!

Plus, his only other reaction besides “state your sources” is to completely ignore something that is making sense, in which case he does his favourite trait of yours, and deflects. Mainly on to you. I’m not sure I could compete with his crush on you, even if I had the flashy torch.

Fair points.
But I seem to have some formidable competition now with his crush on Danielle Smith. He even calls her by the cute name of Danny. Somehow I've never earned a cute nickname in spite of all of the attention I have lavished upon Chuck.
Your efforts are much appreciated, you have a real way with words and psychology. Unfortunately, this patient is beyond redemption, and our efforts are futile. But highly entertaining nonetheless.

[Blaithin]

Fair points.
But I seem to have some formidable competition now with his crush on Danielle Smith. He even calls her by the cute name of Danny. Somehow I've never earned a cute nickname in spite of all of the attention I have lavished upon Chuck.
Your efforts are much appreciated, you have a real way with words and psychology. Unfortunately, this patient is beyond redemption, and our efforts are futile. But highly entertaining nonetheless.

I’m similar enough to Chuck that as long as my post sounds intelligent to me it makes me feel good about myself and it doesn’t matter if the intended recipient can understand it or not 😂😂

Maybe we can start calling you Ally.

[LWeber]

Fair points.
But I seem to have some formidable competition now with his crush on Danielle Smith. He even calls her by the cute name of Danny. Somehow I've never earned a cute nickname in spite of all of the attention I have lavished upon Chuck.
Your efforts are much appreciated, you have a real way with words and psychology. Unfortunately, this patient is beyond redemption, and our efforts are futile. But highly entertaining nonetheless.

Chucky is now DQ - the ultimate Dairy Queen
he cant come out of the closet in real life; don't expect that to happen here...

[Blaithin]

Many people like Dairy Queen though…

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck is an all or nothing kind of person.

In his mind you cannot be skeptical about something, you’re either 100% for it or 100% against it.

He needs to ignore a lot in life or he’d have a life crisis almost daily trying to wrap his head around how peoples minds actually work. I guess he’s read too many papers on the evolution of brain surgery yet no papers on the evolution of understanding human psychology.

And if I'm honest with myself, I actually admire people who are able to live their lives in such blissful ignorance, who are so confident that there is a right and wrong answer to everything, and that their personal worldview is always the right one.
It's like living in a spaghetti western. Good guys wear white bad guys wear black, there are no shades of Gray.
Life would be much less stressful if I could just put my head in the sand, fingers in my ears, and call someone a flat eartherevery time I encounter information which challenges my own personal opinions. Instead, I have to confront that information and reconcile it with everything else I thought I knew, like all other mature reasonable intelligent adults have to do.

[Landdownunder]

hmmmm never made the news in canada im sure.

but at peak of covid paranoia our state just just down for 3 days because of possible covid on a pizza box.

the premier and state chief medical officer in hindsight could well be deemed "flat earthers"

can google it you will find something