Yeah, that’s my source, thanks for googleing that.

I’m not educated enough in the field to come up with a critique like that on my own ;)

Is it vegan if you eat carnivorous plants?

Especially considering that the Iraq situation has no urgency. It was developing for at least a decade. There was and is more than enough time to go the official route.

I can’t remember when I last saw fireflies. They used to be quite common 25 years ago when I was a kid. Damn, time flies and I’m getting old. And fire apparently doesn’t fly any more.

You asked for an explanation since you obviously didn’t understand the argument you were making.

I understand that it was rhetorical, since you thought you knew what you were talking about. But I thought, if you are already asking so nicely, maybe you’ll learn something from it.

Looks like not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you are also resistant to learning.

That is not true. The first and second commandment together are monotheism.

1. I am the Lord thy God
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

The first one only specifies that “I” is your God, not specifically forbidding other Gods, and only the second one then forbids other Gods.

If the first one should be interpreted as “I am the Lord thy ONLY God”, then the second commandment would be redundant.

Please, explain to me how the “No true Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply to the argument.

Yeah, sure, let’s do that. Throwing out some random fallacy names without understanding what the fallacy actually is is easy. Actually understanding what the referenced fallacy actually means is more difficult.

So let’s go to the Wikipedia definition:

The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[3][4][6]

• not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified a posteriori assertion
• offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample
• using rhetoric to signal the modification

So u/andros_rex said:

I wish Christians in red states were Christians.

That was their initial assertion, which asserted that those who call themselves “Christians” in red states don’t follow the definition of what Christians are.

To which you answered:

They are whether you like that or not.

So we have an initial assertion, which you didn’t falsify, you just claimed that it was false.

To which u/ABetterTomorrow (note, a different user) answered

^understanding falls short.

Which means, the original commenter didn’t change anything about the original assertion, and neither did u/ABetterTomorrow.

Since no modification happened, points 2 and 3 or the definition of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy don’t apply either.

The whole situation really has nothing to do with the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, except of sub-groups within a larger group being part of an argument.

Which makes your argument that this is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy in fact a strawman argument, which itself is a fallacy.

Do you now understand what the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is and why you should actually try to understand what terms mean before using them?

Edit: What’s also important to know is why is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy a fallacy? It’s because the argument becomes a tautology, something that’s always true. “No true Scotsman will do X” means “A Scotsman who does X is no true Scotsman, thus no true Scotsman does X”. That’s always true, so it doesn’t mean anything. It takes the original claim “No true Scotsman will do X” and transforms it into a meaningless argument. That’s the fallacious part.

What u/andros_rex actually said meant was “If you don’t follow Christ’s teachings, you shouldn’t call yourself a Christian”. It’s a subtile difference, but an important one. The “no true Scotsman” fallacy argues against doing X by saying that no true Scotsman would be doing X. But what u/andros_rex argues for is that these supposed Christians don’t live up to the standards of Christ/being a Christian. It’s basically the opposite reasoning.

I think they might have meant the second commandment.

Roughly 30% of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies are estimated to be not reproducible. Because nobody takes peer reviews seriously and everyone is just rewarded for publishing, no matter how much of it is garbage.

Remember the “chocolate helps you lose weight” study that went through every stupid newspaper? It was obvious garbage, employing p-hacking, using a fake researcher’s name, using a made-up university institute. And yet it went through peer review without issue, was published in a journal and was picked up by every newspaper under the sun.

Then the author stepped forward and said he only created this fake study to show how easy it is to publish a garbage paper. The thing he didn’t expect was that nobody cared. Nobody printed anything about him retracting his own obviously fake study. No consequences at all were taken to his finding.

Because everyone is incentivized to publish every piece of toilet paper they can find, and nobody cares about the quality.

Tbh, these artist renditions are almost completely made up. They are made up, because the press won’t print a “We found a piece of bone shrapnel and we guess it might belong to a dinosaur”, but they totally will print a nice image of a dinosaur from Jurassic Park, no matter if it’s truthful or just purely made up.

Science is hard and getting proper science published in regular non-scientific press is even harder, unless you make crap up.

That’s why the fake “chocolate helps you loose weight” study made it into every newspaper front page in existence, while the reveal by the author that the study was faked was completely not covered at all. (He did that to expose how easy it is to get fake science published. He just didn’t expect how little anyone in media cared whether the science published is actually science.)

Real science is hard. Fake science is easy. Debunks and negative peer reviews are just not published. Hence, there’s a huge amount of garbage science floating around and hardly anyone disputes it. Because of blind, unquestioning, religious faith in science.

There’s a website (can’t be bothered to google it right now), where they reconstruct modern-day animals from their bones as if they were dinosaurs. It’s ridiculous.

That’s why I think that most of paleontology is just speculative nonsense. You get these nice pictures of dinosaurs in their natural habitat, then you read the paper and it turns out, all they have of that dinosaur is an imprint of half a knuckle bone.

Astronomy is similar. You get pretty images of exoplanets with clouds, continents and oceans, and then you read the paper and all they had was periodic flickering of a star when the planet orbits in between the star and us.

At that rate, they could just also invent a space faring dinosaur civilization from the same fragments of information and it would be just as grounded in reality.

It’s a broadband bang that can be heard across the whole spectrum. It becomes audible when listening to radio broadcasts.

Regular radio transmissions are comparatively narrow band, allowing lots of simultaneous transmissions in the same airspace, each on its own frequency. The spark gap transistor is very wide band, so it basically sounds as if you are sending a bang sound across all radio frequencies at the same time.

It wouldn’t destroy radio equipment, but the radio transmissions. It’s basically as if you’d use a radio jammer as a morse code transmitter.

Pretty much the first type of commercially viable radio transmitter was the spark-gap transmitter (“Knallfunkensender” in German). It worked by charging up some capacitors to up to 100kV and then letting them spark. This spark sent a massive banging noise on the whole radio spectrum, which could then be turned into an audible noise using a very simple receiver. That was then used to send morse codes (or similar encodings).

They went into service around 1900, and by 1920 it was illegal to use these because they would disrupt any and all other radio transmissions in the area with a massive loud bang.

This.

There are often actual limits to what can be done, and there are practical limits. Especially in the early days of a technology it’s really hard to understand which limits are actual limits, practical limits or only short-term limits.

For example, in the 1800s, people thought that going faster than 30km/h would pose permanent health risks and wouldn’t be practical at all. We now know that 30km/h isn’t fast at all, but we do know that 1300km/h is pretty much the hard speed limit for land travel and that 200-300km/h is the practical limit for land travel (above that it becomes so power-inefficient and so dangerous that there’s hardly a point).

So when looking at the technology in an early state, it’s really hard to know what kind of limit you have hit.

Well, Bush and Trump aren’t exactly charismatic either.

Better north of antarctica than north of arctica.

Tbh, you aren’t wrong. I still keep getting anti-COVID memes and stuff from the lockdowns that’s kept alive by the out-of-touch rightwing clowns in my extended family. They keep all that stuff alive even though it’s been 4 years now and nobody remembers what it felt like.