Science People who reject the theory of human evolution tend to have more bigoted attitudes

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog said:
I would highly recommend against that. That would require her to give out personal information like her name, and places of employment, and that is enough to figure out where she lives.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I asked her what field of biology. Human, plant...

Besides, I already know her name, former address...

She was gracious enough to send me a delicious chocolate cake recipe years ago.
 
calvin natt said:
When did she say she didn’t know she is a woman?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

At her confirmation hearing. Which was televised on every news network, real ones and fake ones.

And she double downed on her ignorance when asked again by several other senators, all of whom were certain whether they themselves were men or women.

Then, she was mocked mercilessly for her supreme ignorance or complete dishonesty for days by pretty much every news outlet, comedian, and politician around the globe. It has become the truly defining moment that she will be known for throughout history.

How detached from reality, and the political extremists that you vote for, are you?

This is how countries are overthrown, through the intellectual laziness and apathy of the citizenry.

This is why you and most of what's left of this forum are wrong about nearly every important political issue, and amazingly somehow never even figure it out.

I suggest that you watch the hearings on YouTube, because that was just the tip of the iceberg. Least qualified SCOTUS Justice of all time, and one with no respect at all for the few bits and pieces she knew about the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. She said she's never even read The Dred Scot decision, nor did she know what it was. Unbelievable for any Judge at any level. #1 topic addressed at every law school in the nation.

I read it in 7th grade US History, after reading it on my own at LO Public Library in the 4th grade.
 
crandc said:
I don't feed trolls.
Click to expand...

See, now I'm thinking you're not a real scientist at all. Probably just a lab assistant of some sort.

Because in my 17 years working for USACE, BLM (the real one), and USFS, I came to know literally dozens of scientists. Many were biologists. Some became good friends of mine.

And to the last one, they never resorted to the kind of lowbrow insults that you continually lob. They were inquisitive by nature and always eager to share ideas and learn from others whenever the opportunity arose.

I don't recall any of them ever insulting anyone actually, but I am certain that if they did it would be a far wittier burn than troll or racist, your favorite (only?) go-to's.

You are one of 3 or 4 people here who has called me a troll in the last 2 days, a personal insult no less than using the dreaded n-word.

No reaction from any mods. Crickets.
 
MARIS61 said:
Least qualified SCOTUS Justice of all time,
Click to expand...

Nah... That title goes to Amy Coney Barrett hands down. Seems you missed that one. Wasn't even a judge. You cannot possibly believe what you just wrote.
The only upside to Barrett was there wasn't anything to review so they could confirm her very quickly.
 
MARIS61 said:
See, now I'm thinking you're not a real scientist at all. Probably just a lab assistant of some sort.

Because in my 17 years working for USACE, BLM (the real one), and USFS, I came to know literally dozens of scientists. Many were biologists. Some became good friends of mine.

And to the last one, they never resorted to the kind of lowbrow insults that you continually lob. They were inquisitive by nature and always eager to share ideas and learn from others whenever the opportunity arose.

I don't recall any of them ever insulting anyone actually, but I am certain that if they did it would be a far wittier burn than troll or racist, your favorite (only?) go-to's.

You are one of 3 or 4 people here who has called me a troll in the last 2 days, a personal insult no less than using the dreaded n-word.

No reaction from any mods. Crickets.
Click to expand...
LMAO!
tenor(10).gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
MARIS61 said:
Seriously?

At her confirmation hearing. Which was televised on every news network, real ones and fake ones.

And she double downed on her ignorance when asked again by several other senators, all of whom were certain whether they themselves were men or women.

Then, she was mocked mercilessly for her supreme ignorance or complete dishonesty for days by pretty much every news outlet, comedian, and politician around the globe. It has become the truly defining moment that she will be known for throughout history.

How detached from reality, and the political extremists that you vote for, are you?

This is how countries are overthrown, through the intellectual laziness and apathy of the citizenry.

This is why you and most of what's left of this forum are wrong about nearly every important political issue, and amazingly somehow never even figure it out.

I suggest that you watch the hearings on YouTube, because that was just the tip of the iceberg. Least qualified SCOTUS Justice of all time, and one with no respect at all for the few bits and pieces she knew about the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. She said she's never even read The Dred Scot decision, nor did she know what it was. Unbelievable for any Judge at any level. #1 topic addressed at every law school in the nation.

I read it in 7th grade US History, after reading it on my own at LO Public Library in the 4th grade.
Click to expand...
She was asked to define woman. Not if she was a woman. Or is that wrong?
 
MARIS61 said:
See, now I'm thinking you're not a real scientist at all. Probably just a lab assistant of some sort.

Because in my 17 years working for USACE, BLM (the real one), and USFS, I came to know literally dozens of scientists. Many were biologists. Some became good friends of mine.

And to the last one, they never resorted to the kind of lowbrow insults that you continually lob. They were inquisitive by nature and always eager to share ideas and learn from others whenever the opportunity arose.

I don't recall any of them ever insulting anyone actually, but I am certain that if they did it would be a far wittier burn than troll or racist, your favorite (only?) go-to's.

You are one of 3 or 4 people here who has called me a troll in the last 2 days, a personal insult no less than using the dreaded n-word.

No reaction from any mods. Crickets.
Click to expand...
So you weren’t like any of your biologist friends is what you’re saying
 
MARIS61 said:
See, now I'm thinking you're not a real scientist at all. Probably just a lab assistant of some sort.

Because in my 17 years working for USACE, BLM (the real one), and USFS, I came to know literally dozens of scientists. Many were biologists. Some became good friends of mine.

And to the last one, they never resorted to the kind of lowbrow insults that you continually lob. They were inquisitive by nature and always eager to share ideas and learn from others whenever the opportunity arose.

I don't recall any of them ever insulting anyone actually, but I am certain that if they did it would be a far wittier burn than troll or racist, your favorite (only?) go-to's.

You are one of 3 or 4 people here who has called me a troll in the last 2 days, a personal insult no less than using the dreaded n-word.

No reaction from any mods. Crickets.
Click to expand...
But your posts don't deserve more of a response than that. She is labeling your act, not making a personal judgment about you.

You are trolling. She is calling it like it is. It's not an insult, it's a statement of fact.
 
MARIS61 said:
See, now I'm thinking you're not a real scientist at all. Probably just a lab assistant of some sort.

Because in my 17 years working for USACE, BLM (the real one), and USFS, I came to know literally dozens of scientists. Many were biologists. Some became good friends of mine.

And to the last one, they never resorted to the kind of lowbrow insults that you continually lob. They were inquisitive by nature and always eager to share ideas and learn from others whenever the opportunity arose.

I don't recall any of them ever insulting anyone actually, but I am certain that if they did it would be a far wittier burn than troll or racist, your favorite (only?) go-to's.

You are one of 3 or 4 people here who has called me a troll in the last 2 days, a personal insult no less than using the dreaded n-word.

No reaction from any mods. Crickets.
Click to expand...

It's not a personal insult. It's a generalized statement.

Also, I looked into your claim 3 or 4 people called you a troll in the past 2 days. I could only find 1, and it had already been moderated via editing.
 
calvin natt said:
She was asked to define woman. Not if she was a woman. Or is that wrong?
Click to expand...

Stop being disingenuous. It's a cowardly but universal escape from scrutiny/resposibility used by spineless people who know they are absolutely wrong.

It's the same thing. If she CAN'T define what a woman is then obviously she doesn't/can't know if she is a woman.

She was asked that, and said she was incapable of answering because she was not a biologist. Which is either a lie or a clear sign of having severely debilitating mental illness.

Either way it's absolute proof she is clearly incompetent to serve the in any position in our Justice system.

For someone wanting the power to define what a woman is for all Americans in the myriad of cases on the topic likely to arrive in SCOTUS, it's a demanding disqualification.



But that was just one of hundreds upon hundreds of questions that she either could not or would not answer.

If you have any curiosity, any curiosity at all what a vile, dishonest, and frankly not very smart woman you are defending, here's your Grip On Reality:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ketanji+brown+jackson+confirmation+hearing
 
MARIS61 said:
Stop being disingenuous. It's a cowardly but universal escape from scrutiny/resposibility used by spineless people who know they are absolutely wrong.

It's the same thing. If she CAN'T define what a woman is then obviously she doesn't/can't know if she is a woman.

She was asked that, and said she was incapable of answering because she was not a biologist. Which is either a lie or a clear sign of having severely debilitating mental illness.

Either way it's absolute proof she is clearly incompetent to serve the in any position in our Justice system.

For someone wanting the power to define what a woman is for all Americans in the myriad of cases on the topic likely to arrive in SCOTUS, it's a demanding disqualification.



But that was just one of hundreds upon hundreds of questions that she either could not or would not answer.

If you have any curiosity, any curiosity at all what a vile, dishonest, and frankly not very smart woman you are defending, here's your Grip On Reality:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ketanji brown jackson confirmation hearing
Click to expand...


She didn't care to debate biology with them because she refused to play their game.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Nah... That title goes to Amy Coney Barrett hands down. Seems you missed that one. Wasn't even a judge.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Amy Vivian Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972) is an American lawyer and jurist serving as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] She is the fifth woman to serve on the court. She was nominated by President Donald Trump and has served since October 27, 2020. She was a United States circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 2017 to 2020.
Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit, and the Senate confirmed her on October 31, 2017. Before and while serving on the federal bench, she has been a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School, where she has taught civil procedure, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation.

I'm not a fan of any of the 9 (10) current SCOTUS lineup other that the two, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who legitimately rule from the standpoint of the position's given powers, defending The Constitution and interpreting (not redefining) it for lesser minds.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
So he comes back with Tucker as his response. I can only imagine the smile on his face when he posted that reply knowing he was gonna stir the pot maybe even "Melt a Snowflake".
You guys gotta quit taking the bait.
Click to expand...
The funniest part is it's not that they have a different opinion that "melts" a snowflake, it's that people get upset that they're so stupid that they don't realize they haven't made their point, and it's more pity.

Like, I really feel sorry for people who take this stance, not because it's one I disagree with, but it's an argument that is lazy, uniformed, and shows they aren't really interested in an actual discussion but instead they want to fling poop at people and go "see? you like poop!"
 
MARIS61 said:
Stop being disingenuous. It's a cowardly but universal escape from scrutiny/resposibility used by spineless people who know they are absolutely wrong.

It's the same thing. If she CAN'T define what a woman is then obviously she doesn't/can't know if she is a woman.

She was asked that, and said she was incapable of answering because she was not a biologist. Which is either a lie or a clear sign of having severely debilitating mental illness.

Either way it's absolute proof she is clearly incompetent to serve the in any position in our Justice system.

For someone wanting the power to define what a woman is for all Americans in the myriad of cases on the topic likely to arrive in SCOTUS, it's a demanding disqualification.



But that was just one of hundreds upon hundreds of questions that she either could not or would not answer.

If you have any curiosity, any curiosity at all what a vile, dishonest, and frankly not very smart woman you are defending, here's your Grip On Reality:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ketanji+brown+jackson+confirmation+hearing
Click to expand...

LMAO!
 
Chris Craig said:
She didn't care to debate biology with them because she refused to play their game.
Click to expand...

You regard vetting the most powerful position in our Justice system as a game?

The definition of a woman is not a debate in biology, nor in our legal system. It is established fact. It's the basis for standing by all women plaintiffs in an endless array of legal cases, any cases involving women's rights for instance.

It's the first known and patently obvious fact of the 2 sexes of human beings, universally known for hundreds of thousands of years, known to everyone who has ever trod this Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABM
MARIS61 said:
Stop being disingenuous. It's a cowardly but universal escape from scrutiny/resposibility used by spineless people who know they are absolutely wrong.

It's the same thing. If she CAN'T define what a woman is then obviously she doesn't/can't know if she is a woman.

She was asked that, and said she was incapable of answering because she was not a biologist. Which is either a lie or a clear sign of having severely debilitating mental illness.

Either way it's absolute proof she is clearly incompetent to serve the in any position in our Justice system.

For someone wanting the power to define what a woman is for all Americans in the myriad of cases on the topic likely to arrive in SCOTUS, it's a demanding disqualification.



But that was just one of hundreds upon hundreds of questions that she either could not or would not answer.

If you have any curiosity, any curiosity at all what a vile, dishonest, and frankly not very smart woman you are defending, here's your Grip On Reality:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ketanji brown jackson confirmation hearing
Click to expand...

If you are asked a question that is very clearly just being asked to set you up for a gotcha moment like this was obviously, why answer it? There is no right answer and everyone knows it’s a stupid question. This lady is intelligent. Far more so than most if not all of the pieces of shit who grilled her for hours trying to bait her into saying the wrong thing.
 
MARIS61 said:
You regard vetting the most powerful position in our Justice system as a game?

The definition of a woman is not a debate in biology, nor in our legal system. It is established fact. It's the basis for standing by all women plaintiffs in an endless array of legal cases, any cases involving women's rights for instance.

It's the first known and patently obvious fact of the 2 sexes of human beings, universally known for hundreds of thousands of years, known to everyone who has ever trod this Earth.
Click to expand...
Awww, you’re just pissed off that she doesn’t like beer………
 
julius said:
The funniest part is it's not that they have a different opinion that "melts" a snowflake, it's that people get upset that they're so stupid that they don't realize they haven't made their point, and it's more pity.

Like, I really feel sorry for people who take this stance, not because it's one I disagree with, but it's an argument that is lazy, uniformed, and shows they aren't really interested in an actual discussion but instead they want to fling poop at people and go "see? you like poop!"
Click to expand...
I do like to poop. It’s something I do quite often.
 
MARIS61 said:
Huh?

Amy Vivian Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972) is an American lawyer and jurist serving as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] She is the fifth woman to serve on the court. She was nominated by President Donald Trump and has served since October 27, 2020. She was a United States circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 2017 to 2020.
Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit, and the Senate confirmed her on October 31, 2017. Before and while serving on the federal bench, she has been a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School, where she has taught civil procedure, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation.

I'm not a fan of any of the 9 (10) current SCOTUS lineup other that the two, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who legitimately rule from the standpoint of the position's given powers, defending The Constitution and interpreting (not redefining) it for lesser minds.
Click to expand...
Absolutely by far the least qualified candidate we have seen in the last 100 years. Don't try to muddy the water. You said what you said. Now deal with the proof that you yourself posted. She was working at Notre Dame just two years before and had never even been a judge. Even her nomination to the circuit position was scrutinized. Trump was grabbing any warm body who he could manipulate and putting them into positions he thought might help him steal an election. It failed miserably even with a loaded Supreme Court.
For someone who continuously says others are uninformed you certainly are quite lacking in that regard.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Absolutely by far the least qualified candidate we have seen in the last 100 years. Don't try to muddy the water. You said what you said. Now deal with the proof that you yourself posted. She was working at Notre Dame just two years before and had never even been a judge. Even her nomination to the circuit position was scrutinized. Trump was grabbing any warm body who he could manipulate and putting them into positions he thought might help him steal an election. It failed miserably even with a loaded Supreme Court.
For someone who continuously says others are uninformed you certainly are quite lacking in that regard.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming there is some brain damage going on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top