Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[The Grand Nudger]

The only one claiming entire fields of anything are pseudoscience is you my dude.

[arewethereyet]

Your latest paper has fuck all to do with the topic.

And stop linking to it before you get banned again - your recent time out was intended to get you to stop all the self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Boru

The conclusions and premises of my paper have nothing to do with the topic, but the methodology of my paper is an example of good social science methodology. And the fact that you have never published a paper in social sciences and will readily claim entire fields (not papers, fields) of social sciences are pseudoscience tells us more about you than about Gary Kleck's study.

I would strongly suggest you take the advice of staff.

Very strongly.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Your latest paper has fuck all to do with the topic.

And stop linking to it before you get banned again - your recent time out was intended to get you to stop all the self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Boru

The conclusions and premises of my paper have nothing to do with the topic, but the methodology of my paper is an example of good social science methodology. And the fact that you have never published a paper in social sciences and will readily claim entire fields (not papers, fields) of social sciences are pseudoscience tells us more about you than about Gary Kleck's study.

As Nudger said, I never claimed that the social sciences are pseudoscience. I’m simply criticizing Kleck’s paper as poorly done social science.

As awty said, take a hint.

Boru

[Nay_Sayer]

The conclusions and premises of my paper have nothing to do with the topic, but the methodology of my paper is an example of good social science methodology. And the fact that you have never published a paper in social sciences and will readily claim entire fields (not papers, fields) of social sciences are pseudoscience tells us more about you than about Gary Kleck's study.

I would strongly suggest you take the advice of staff.

Very strongly.

He's currently writing an advice-taking program. This time it'll work.

[FlatAssembler]

The conclusions and premises of my paper have nothing to do with the topic, but the methodology of my paper is an example of good social science methodology. And the fact that you have never published a paper in social sciences and will readily claim entire fields (not papers, fields) of social sciences are pseudoscience tells us more about you than about Gary Kleck's study.

As Nudger said, I never claimed that the social sciences are pseudoscience. I’m simply criticizing Kleck’s paper as poorly done social science.

As awty said, take a hint.

Boru

You are criticizing the Kleck's paper... with arguments that can be used to reject the entire fields of social sciences.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Is El Salvador's way of solving crime™ killing terrorist self admitted terrorists?  Then yes.  A thousand times yes.

Why don't you stop trying to concern troll me and just speak your unfiltered mind?  What weighs so heavily?  You keep pretending that theres no definition for a terrorists, as if I have to personally supply you with one.  I do not.  Are you a terrorist?  What have you done?

You don't agree with the way the United States defines terrorism, so I'm asking you for your personal definition since it is obviously different. You want to kill all militia men, and perhaps even just lone people who say they don't like immigration. The United States does not define terrorism that way.

[arewethereyet]

Is El Salvador's way of solving crime™ killing terrorist self admitted terrorists?  Then yes.  A thousand times yes.

Why don't you stop trying to concern troll me and just speak your unfiltered mind?  What weighs so heavily?  You keep pretending that theres no definition for a terrorists, as if I have to personally supply you with one.  I do not.  Are you a terrorist?  What have you done?

You don't agree with the way the United States defines terrorism, so I'm asking you for your personal definition since it is obviously different. You want to kill all militia men, and perhaps even just lone people who say they don't like immigration. The United States does not define terrorism that way.

When did you start speaking for the US?

Never, that's when.

STFU for a change.

[Irreligious Atheist]

As we say here in Texas, "he needed killin'." Killing a terrorist to stop his terrorist act seems sensible to me. Arguing that this equates to wanting to kill anyone who "looks like they might be in a gang", not so much.

Define terrorist. If the government knows of terrorist plans to go on a shooting spree, they'll usually step in and stop it. If they don't have that info in advance, how do you stop it without getting rid of due process and civil liberties? And if we just want the government to kill people spreading hate, why not just bomb every church and mosque while we're at it? A lot of anti-gay and anti-trans and anti-woman speech spread at those places. What are we talking about here? Nudge wants to randomly kill people with no due process? You're really co-signing that right now?

[Irreligious Atheist]

You don't agree with the way the United States defines terrorism, so I'm asking you for your personal definition since it is obviously different. You want to kill all militia men, and perhaps even just lone people who say they don't like immigration. The United States does not define terrorism that way.

When did you start speaking for the US?

Never, that's when.

STFU for a change.

When did I say I spoke for the US? You clearly didn't read the post. The US defines terrorism in one way. The US does not define militia men as terrorists, but clearly Nudge does, therefore he's clearly not using the same definition that his country uses. What definition is he using? No one knows, since he refuses to give that definition. Imagine Richard Dawkins in a debate getting bitchy and saying he refuses to define what atheism means. We'd look at him like he was off his rocker, and ask him why he even showed up if he was going to refuse to define his terms.

[arewethereyet]

Who is 'we'? Who are you speaking for now?