metafour

Verified Member
  • Content count

    5,148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

metafour last won the day on September 19 2016

metafour had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

447 Sterling

About metafour

  • Rank
    ALPHA & OMEGA

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Sadiq Khan has quite a few interesting connections to groups that supported Hamas and other extremist organizations, on top of Muslim Brotherhood connections which got him elected in the first place. Whether or not he supports terrorism isn't up to me to decide, but he certainly isn't doing a whole lot to "fight terrorism" in his city. They've apprehended more people for "hate speech" on Twitter/Facebook following these attacks than they have known radicals who openly walk the streets, because everyone knows that mean words on the internet are more dangerous than people who are just itching to commit murder. 15 years ago this man fought to try to overturn the U.K's ban on known extremist Louis Farrakhan and yet today he's trying to ban Trump from making a state visit. Talk about double standards.
  2. Frazier just wasn't very good. At some point the player can either play or he can't, regardless of what the situation is like. The ida that he would have been a star QB had the stars aligned differently is a joke: a star QB wouldn't look like crap even under a less than favorable situation. Jay Cutler had absolutely zero support on those crap Vanderbilt teams he played on and he still excelled.
  3. No. 5'7 is too short to bother with at CB. Who exactly is he going to replace to "provide depth"?
  4. Why? You are completely irrational in this discussion. The reason why Islam is brought up with regards to violent crimes committed by Arabs is because there is absolutely relevance to the correlation. Just like there is relevance to the fact that the vast majority of serial killers are white: when they were chasing the DC Snipers they blew months of searching because the police were running under the pretense that the shooter was likely white, why this pretense? Because statistically serial-killings are almost always committed by white males. When a middle-eastern subject commits a violent crime, the story is almost always the same: "he was a regular guy, then he started spending all his time at the Mosque, then he started dressing entirely in traditional clothing and grew a beard". All the Western-born radicals who go from nice middle-class boys to joining ISIS in Syria/Iraq/etc. are converted in Mosques, they aren't converted in some non-existent "Terrorist Clubs" or "Muslim Superiority Rallies". In this case, religion absolutely becomes relevant to the discussion. The reason why religion isn't brought up when a white male commits a murder is because there is virtually no proof that religious fanaticism is ever the cause, not because there is some "white supremacist" double standard at play.
  5. Its obviously not the reason. You think as multi-billion dollar industry can't afford to hire a few med-techs to draw blood?
  6. This isn't taken as seriously by NFL teams as people think so a lot of these guys barely even try. Either way, it really doesn't matter for most positions. A few of the positions actually show negative-correlation: Corners for instance saw impact players by and large actually score lower on the test. Yeah, Reuben Foster isn't really smart. Most of these guys aren't smart.
  7. "Look at my thick-rimmed glasses, I'm such a nerd/science enthusiast!!!"
  8. I already told you that I'm well aware that Tyson has some qualifications; the claim was never that he was some guy that they just plucked off the streets, it was that he was a D-list scientist that all these progressive nerds (like the ones you see in the "Science March" pictures) vaunted up as some sort of Christ-like figure, when in reality Tyson is barely a blip in his own field (let alone even worth a soundbite in fields he has no clue about). Being a science popularizer is great; the problem arises when a science popularizer starts trying to overstep their boundaries which is exactly what you see constantly with frauds like Tyson and Nye who attempt to influence politics instead of doing the only thing they are even elevated to do: make people interested in science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is no different than someone like Bobby Flay: he's a created and mass-produced product. You want to watch Bobby Flay and get inspiration to become a chef? Great, no problem here. I'm going to have a problem however if Bobby Flay starts telling me what you can and can't do culinarily, or if he starts pretending to be an expert in the ethnic or regional cuisines that he doesn't belong to. Like I said: the problem with these new-age "Church of Science" fanatics is that they don't even understand the first rules of scientific theory; and its perpetuated by their heroes like Tyson and Nye who seem to want to shut down scientific discussion and who's own scientific stances are blatantly driven by politics. That isn't science.
  9. Yup. The first rule of science is to question everything. That means that you try to disprove your own theory, because in effect if it passes that test you are actually strengthening said theory. If you've heard clowns like Bill Nye talk, they want to SILENCE all discussion. Congratulations Bill: you are no longer even in the realm of science anymore. Dude should go back to teaching elementary school kids about the periodic table instead of whoring his perception as "the science guy" for monetary profit. When it comes to something as obviously controversial and unsettled as climate change, to pretend like a discussion doesn't even need to be had is not only absurd, but frightening. If the conclusions were as obviously iron-clad as you're led to believe, why are they constantly finding these think-tanks to be fudging if not entirely making up data? I love the "Religion of Science" followers who stoop down to claim that this is all "big business" trying to shut climate change down for profit when they can't even open their own eyes and see that the whole climate change field has become a ~billion dollar industry itself. Yes, corporations want less regulations. However don't be naive and turn your head to the fact that there is now a LOT of money to be made by people who are going to tell you that they need millions of dollars or else we're all going to be swimming in ~10-15 years LOL.
  10. Maybe you should do the research. I've done the research. Tyson's academic past is spotty at best. He was denied his PhD at Texas, as apparently his professors encouraged him to "consider alternate careers" (a nice way of saying that his thesis was garbage). Tyson of course blamed racism, even though he admitted he was playing in bands and not focusing anywhere near enough on his research. He eventually got his PhD from Columbia. He's written barely any scientific papers, with none being noteworthy...ie: his actual scientific accomplishments are virtually nonexistent. His career blew up as he was anointed the successor to Carl Sagan, which is a joke at best considering that Sagan wrote some 600 academic papers and actually had clout within the scientific community. The reality is that Tyson would be a virtual nobody in the scientific community if he weren't a hip-talking black man. Michio Kaku (who is an actual physicist and 100x more qualified than Tyson) has been a "science popularizer" as long as Tyson has, the reason why its Tyson sitting atop the throne is because its not as "socially progressive" to parade around a Japanese scientist like it is to parade around a black scientist. I'm not telling you that Tyson isn't "smart" or that he has no qualification; I'm telling you that it is beyond ridiculous to anoint him as some unquestionable force in all things science when in fact his scientific achievements are more or less nonexistent. He's been caught bullshitting a stupid amount of times; most of it gets swept under the rug. Nevertheless the new breed of progressives who subscribe to the "Church of Science" vault him up as a Christ-like figure and lap up everything that comes out of his mouth as fact. That is the irony behind all this: you people can't even see that this new "rise of Popular Science" looks eerily comparable to the religious fanaticism that you s*** on constantly. You mock the "stupid religious man" for showing unquestioned faith in Christ/Mohammed/etc. yet hold fraudsters like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye in the same regard regardless of what they actually know or have any expertise in. If you can't see that these two are nothing more than political pawns then I don't know what to say. Go take a look at Bill Nye's new "science" show on Netflix if you want an example: its nothing more than a parade for every predictable Liberal SJW movement of today...but they're going to use the fact that its Bill Nye ("a scientist") to give it the credibility it lacks. Don't try to paint me with some anti-science bull**** label. I'm a huge fan of science and have been interested in physics for a long time. You are beyond blind if you believe that there isn't corruption in science. Even the "peer review" system which is supposed to act as a checking-system is subject to huge bias: just ask any scientist who tries to buck the status-quo and is immediately shut down by the majority pillars of what is considered to be "acceptable science".
  11. Science has become a political tool, which is pretty disgusting. Look no further than who's been propped up to "champion" science in the mainstream: ultra-liberals like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Bill Nye was at least an engineer (although his know-it-all attitude towards things he has no expertise in is annoying), but Tyson has literally no real scientific qualification and yet he is worshiped as some unquestionable force on every scientific issue that pops up. The reality is that even the science on climate change is hardly settled. There are absolutely scientists who aren't convinced of the whole doomsday prognosis, of course you don't really hear from them too often.
  12. Ignoring it? You mean like all the ignoring that is going on when science suggests for instance that transgenderism is a mental disorder LOL? Science also suggests a lot of other things that hurt peoples feelings which are routinely ignored (like biological differences). Its kind of funny how "science" only matters when its confirming your own premeditated agenda.
  13. Never trust a man who commits to a long-term reverse pedophilic relationship. Dude got into a romantic relationship with his drama teacher at like 16/17 and they're now married...I think she's got kids from her past marriage that are older than he is. Creepy as hell; at best you're looking at some mommy issues from Macron.
  14. If the girl is not ready to give birth, then did it ever occur to you that may she shouldn't be having sex, or at the very least taking extreme contraceptive measures (which are readily available)? Don't give me some crap about rape cases. Rape pregnancies are such an absurdly low figure that they barely even qualify as a point of discussion.