• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doug Jones win was 100MM years in the making

HowardBThiname said:
Now you're backpedaling? So, Jones' win wasn't 100 Million years in the making after all?

Fascinating.
Click to expand...

Well, it was, but it doesn’t mean it’s causation!

I understand English is hard as a second language, so it’s OK.
 
HowardBThiname said:
You missed one little thing -- the article wasn't about correlation -- it was about causation. You simply listed the events in order, the question is - do you believe the sedimentary formation of 100 million years ago really had any influence on the Jones/Moore election? And why the causation took a noticeable skip in 2016?

The article is pseudoscience at its worst. The OP is an even more ridiculous anti-science suggestion.
Click to expand...

lol...do you honestly think anyone here is suggesting that some shallow sea from 100 million years ago caused Moore to lose? Man. That really takes the prize.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, it was, but it doesn’t mean it’s causation!

I understand English is hard as a second language, so it’s OK.
Click to expand...

At first I thought he was just being pedantic as a means to troll this thread. Now...I'm beginning to think he believes this **** he's spewing.
 
calamity said:
lol...do you honestly think anyone here is suggesting that some shallow sea from 100 million years ago caused Moore to lose? Man. That really takes the prize.
Click to expand...

What do you think the title of this thread is all about? LOL

You're making my argument for me.
 
HowardBThiname said:
What do you think the title of this thread is all about? LOL

You're making my argument for me.
Click to expand...

lol...you might want to read that title again. Perhaps more slowly this time.
 
calamity said:
lol...you might want to read that title again. Perhaps more slowly this time.
Click to expand...

Again, you're making my argument for me. It's nice that you ran to the defense of your buddy, he badly needed your help, but, you're batting zero with this line of posting.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Again, you're making my argument for me. It's nice that you ran to the defense of your buddy, he badly needed your help, but, you're batting zero with this line of posting.
Click to expand...

Rarely does someone completely miss the point of a thread like you do here. Bravo!
 
HowardBThiname said:
The article is bull****, pure and simple. It was written by an oceanographer who is trying to link the rich soil of the what was once termed the "Black Belt" with blacks who live there today and vote democratic in Presidential elections. Problem is, rich soil exists in formations all over the world, and blacks do not necessarily inhabit those locations. It simply does not follow that sedimentary deposits formed millions of years ago are the cause of blacks voting for democrats. That's just ludicrous.

I find the author's stretch of the imagination to border on racialism -- and, frankly, it's uncomfortable to read.

Besides, his theory failed in 2016.

I stand by my statement that you didn't read the article. Had you done so, you'd know it's nothing more than ruminations of an oceanographer that are highly questionable.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the author is a nutjob.
 
calamity said:
Rarely does someone completely miss the point of a thread like you do here. Bravo!
Click to expand...

When I asked you what the point of the thread was, you repeated the article's points, almost verbatim. When I asked you if you agreed with that -- you acted like no one in their right mind would agree with that.

The truth is -- you don't have a clue as to what you're defending or disagreeing with.

You're just disagreeing because your buddy was flailing on this one. He posted a pseudo-science thread that has virtually no peer-reviewed backing -- nor is it accepted in political science circles. There virtually is no point to this thread -- one of the worst fake science pieces I've ever read.
 
HowardBThiname said:
When I asked you what the point of the thread was, you repeated the article's points, almost verbatim. When I asked you if you agreed with that -- you acted like no one in their right mind would agree with that.

The truth is -- you don't have a clue as to what you're defending or disagreeing with.

You're just disagreeing because your buddy was flailing on this one. He posted a pseudo-science thread that has virtually no peer-reviewed backing -- nor is it accepted in political science circles. There virtually is no point to this thread -- one of the worst fake science pieces I've ever read.
Click to expand...

What?

Geological formations in the American South has no peer reviewed backing?

The historical fact that slavery flourished on cotton plantations in the Black Belt has no acceptance in political science circles?

You are one odd dude.
 
Threegoofs said:
What?

Geological formations in the American South has no peer reviewed backing?
Click to expand...

Of course it does.

The historical fact that slavery flourished on cotton plantations in the Black Belt has no acceptance in political science circles?
Click to expand...

This too is factual.

However, there is nothing, except that bogus piece of crap you linked to in the OP that links those two elements with the idea that the sedimentary formation was somehow destined to influence presidential elections.

Drawing that sort of parallel, or even attempting to draw it, is junk science, pure and simple.



You are one odd dude.
Click to expand...

Calling names isn't allowed, and if you weren't feeling so unsure of your position, you'd be able to articulate your argument instead of hiding behind calamity's skirts and calling others' name. Man up. Admit you made a mistake and then move on.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Of course it does.



This too is factual.

However, there is nothing, except that bogus piece of crap you linked to in the OP that links those two elements with the idea that the sedimentary formation was somehow destined to influence presidential elections.

Drawing that sort of parallel, or even attempting to draw it, is junk science, pure and simple.





Calling names isn't allowed, and if you weren't feeling so unsure of your position, you'd be able to articulate your argument instead of hiding behind calamity's skirts and calling others' name. Man up. Admit you made a mistake and then move on.
Click to expand...

You’re hilarious.

How cute that you actually think that there is some kind of scientific proof that can link a 100MM year old ocean and a minor Senate election in 2017.

Maybe you want to repeat the experiment without the ocean? Or slavery?
 
Threegoofs said:
You’re hilarious.

How cute that you actually think that there is some kind of scientific proof that can link a 100MM year old ocean and a minor Senate election in 2017.

Maybe you want to repeat the experiment without the ocean? Or slavery?
Click to expand...

Lets revisit your title:

"Doug Jones win was 100MM years in the making"

ROFLMAO
 
HowardBThiname said:
Lets revisit your title:

"Doug Jones win was 100MM years in the making"

ROFLMAO
Click to expand...

I guess if you have nothing else to say but repeat the title and whine about nonspecific ‘science stuff’, that’s your thing.

But if you have an issue with the article, you might want to actually specify it, rather than foot stomping.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess if you have nothing else to say but repeat the title and whine about nonspecific ‘science stuff’, that’s your thing.

But if you have an issue with the article, you might want to actually specify it, rather than foot stomping.
Click to expand...

You have yet to successfully defend your title as it relates to the OP.

You posted it -- it's up to you to defend it.

But wait, you've already countered it, yourself.

Did you even stop to think of the ramifications of that article before you started this thread?

What was your point?

You've already backtracked away from the claim you made in the title.

What is your game, anyway?
 
HowardBThiname said:
You have yet to successfully defend your title as it relates to the OP.

You posted it -- it's up to you to defend it.

But wait, you've already countered it, yourself.

Did you even stop to think of the ramifications of that article before you started this thread?

What was your point?

You've already backtracked away from the claim you made in the title.

What is your game, anyway?
Click to expand...

Defend what exactly?

You’re critique is ‘ this is stupid’, and my retort is ‘if you think it’s stupid...you may be calling the wrong thing stupid’.

I stand by my retort.
 
Threegoofs said:
Defend what exactly?

You’re critique is ‘ this is stupid’, and my retort is ‘if you think it’s stupid...you may be calling the wrong thing stupid’.

I stand by my retort.
Click to expand...

You're all over the place on this one. You insinuated by your title that the Jones' win was a result of sedimentary formation. Then, you linked to a junk science article that had a similar dubious title, but, like you, that author was unable to show causation. His title, like yours, insinuated causation, and yet both of you failed miserably to show that hypothesis.

Not everyone is science-minded...I get it, but you should have backed down at the first, instead of beating this dead horse.

You have been unable to defend your title. You've shown absolutely no evidence that Jones' win is related -- even remotely to the formation of rich sedimentary soil.

In your OP, you stated: "Great article on the Black Belt of Alabama, and how the existence of an ancient shoreline impacts US elections today."

You actually made that claim. That an ancient shoreline was impacting US elections.

You wrote that.

Now, you're pretending you didn't mean it.

Unbelievable.
 
HowardBThiname said:
You're all over the place on this one. You insinuated by your title that the Jones' win was a result of sedimentary formation. Then, you linked to a junk science article that had a similar dubious title, but, like you, that author was unable to show causation. His title, like yours, insinuated causation, and yet both of you failed miserably to show that hypothesis.

Not everyone is science-minded...I get it, but you should have backed down at the first, instead of beating this dead horse.

You have been unable to defend your title. You've shown absolutely no evidence that Jones' win is related -- even remotely to the formation of rich sedimentary soil.

In your OP, you stated: "Great article on the Black Belt of Alabama, and how the existence of an ancient shoreline impacts US elections today."

You actually made that claim. That an ancient shoreline was impacting US elections.

You wrote that.

Now, you're pretending you didn't mean it.

Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Wait... you’re saying you are ‘science-minded’?

I need some AIH! I do declare!

An ancient shoreline *has* impacted elections. Just like the present shoreline impacts them today, and the mountains placement affects the distribution of voters, and the continental divide deeply impacts Illinois politics because Chicago wouldn’t exist without it.
 
HowardBThiname said:
No. Because it's focusing on nationwide, presidential elections. The factors put forth in that piece had no viable impact on the the Jones election.



That's just a lot of words explaining that you didn't understand the concept of the article.

You probably didn't even read it before you linked to it.
You're not going to get a better response, but the subject matter of the article simply doesn't apply here.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Threegoofs said:
Wait... you’re saying you are ‘science-minded’?
Click to expand...

I'm saying you're not.

I need some AIH! I do declare!

An ancient shoreline *has* impacted elections. Just like the present shoreline impacts them today, and the mountains placement affects the distribution of voters, and the continental divide deeply impacts Illinois politics because Chicago wouldn’t exist without it.
Click to expand...

Of course it has not impacted elections. Once again, although you backpedaled away from it earlier, you're suggesting causation. That's what "impact" means.

In reality, there is no provable impact -- only "coincidence."

You're really not very good at this, are you?
 
HowardBThiname said:
I'm saying you're not.



Of course it has not impacted elections. Once again, although you backpedaled away from it earlier, you're suggesting causation. That's what "impact" means.

In reality, there is no provable impact -- only "coincidence."

You're really not very good at this, are you?
Click to expand...

No... it’s a direct impact.

Take my last example...Chicago is situated on the connection to the Great Lakes watershed and the Mississippi River watershed. Imagine Chicago was not on a continental divide as it is. It just simply wouldn’t have then existed. The Midwest transportation hub may have become St. Louis, maybe.

It’s not a coincidence that Chicago is where it is!

If Chicago didn’t exist, there would be no large population center like it in the state. That has a profound effect upon Illinois elections- and therefore National elections. Heck- maybe Abe Lincoln himself was only President because of the prominence of Chicago. JFK too, if you buy into that hype.

It’s not a causative factor, but a significant contributor to the way things are.

So if you’re saying the geography around Chicago has no ‘impact’ on its existence and its existence has no ‘impact’ on current day happenings, good luck with that thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom