“no experts”

I never said that, I said that you are cherry-picking the handful of related people who agree with you, most of whom are not experts in anything relevant.

Clearly there are going to be a handful of subject matter experts that believe claims with extraordinarily weak evidence (see Nobel disease), the game of science is not played by fishing for individuals with degrees that support your beliefs. It’s by looking at the evidence, engaging in a fair amount of epistemic and abductive reasoning and arriving at the most useful conclusion. In the case of people like you who don’t have the skillset to do so, you can defer to the consensus of relevant experts. (Eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts, and I certainly wouldn’t cite my vision as an instrument in a paper).

“Some scientists and even Harvard”

You realise you are talking to a physicist right? All your appeal to crackpots and generic “find more information” statements aren’t going to convince me unless you rigorously explain why you think the data is better explained by theories that you can’t formulate (nobody seems to be able to, because the theory is just “it’s beyond our understanding”, the most epistemically worthless statement ever) versus very well known sensory and psychological phenomenon.

“An overwhelming body of government documents”

Which you don’t understand.

“You’re a random internet stranger”

You’re a random internet stranger as well (actually neither of us are, both of us have public works that is easily findable, and let’s say mine are far more topically relevant). Why on earth are you supposed to treated credibly? Especially when you cite your expertise in QM to explain data, like every single crackpot.

“I am a skeptic after all”

How? If you were a skeptic you would have already been aware of my criticism that the data observed does not match any physical theories, AND that we have no reason to believe that these physical theories are wrong. You are confused by the fact that “diagnostics” merely shows that the software/equipment is working as designed not that it is interpreting the data correctly. (We also don’t know what “diagnostics” were performed, in actual physics we don’t say “we checked for errors” we give explicit descriptions of what errors we conjecture and how we accounted for to them, so saying “diagnostics were performed” is scientifically worthless).

I’ve already given several reasons to doubt the results: unreliability of eye witnesses, faulty interpretation of information, and failure to correspond with existing extremely well established theories. All of these are well-established facts and I gave an example of each one, some of which are so common they are open problems in remote sensing, and regularly exploited. The fact that you are so unfamiliar that you just deny them as being irrelevant, is entirely on you.

“Project Blue Book …”

Sure, there is something of interest in recording UAP, just like any other data. This does not produce any credible theories about them corresponding to the data. In fact essentially every report I’ve read can be summarised as “we can’t determine why we have this data”, that’s it.

“All of the experts”

You mean the people that agree with you and have decided are “all of the” experts?

So can you explain to me why “Q” is NOT the expert on internal politics, but the handful of organisations and witnesses are the experts even though you admit that their views aren’t mainstream in science and can’t refute any argument.

It’s quite hilarious that you complain about this brother, when you are engaging in the same faulty reasoning to defend a conspiracy theory that you want to believe.

On a similar note, you don’t seem to grant parapsychology the same level of credibility even though all the same arguments would lead to conclusions like telepathy actually being real.

Second-hand Dell Latitude 5285. Not sure if it’s a hardware failure issue from age, or if kernels actually had problems supporting it.

It’s probably unrelated, but your comment reminded me of this since it’s the only time I’ve encountered it.

The first sentence was sarcasm. How does a company mass produce something that makes no money?

Financially illiterate people seem to be under the impression that rare treatments with high markup are the fiscal bedrock of pharmaceuticals when the reality is that smaller profit but mass produced medicines comprise far greater total income.

Easy, get a physics degree. I already pointed out how the data was clearly incorrect. If UAP are really as credible as you claim (convincing military pilots and Congress critters) how come it doesn’t convince the actual subject matter experts? Physicists.

If this was even remotely plausible, you wouldn’t be having a handful of people looking into it, it would be a core focus of the field.

“I would not consider my article legitimate research”

Then why did you link it as an example? Nobody cares about what style of essay you like to write, this was clearly you trying to flex.

I write actual research papers and I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to cite my own work (which actually does meet standards of research) as an example; you must just be really proud of that BS in psychology.

“Know more than our greatest pilots and military personnel”

Because they built the sensors and study atmospheric physics? You realise pilots, are pilots, not aeronautical or electrical engineers? Why on earth is their opinion magically more credible? Especially when the claim is completely contradictory to very well established physics. I fact I even gave a reason why their information is overwhelmingly likely to be faulty, due to atmospheric heating.

Before anyone tries to engage in explaining complex physical phenomenon, they should try to have some knowledge about it. I would personally recommend reading a textbook on radar engineering and another in atmospheric physics which pretty much explains nearly every single illusion and sensory error possible.

Since you clearly don’t have the intelligence to follow my recommendation, a simpler circumstance is investigating the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, where “the greatest pilots and military personnel” reported seeing attacking boats (including on sonar, a clearly infallible sensor) and bombed and torpedoed empty ocean. We know it was empty now, because the NVA records show that no ships were their.

This isn’t to denigrate the people involved, it’s simply an notable example that sensors can fail, data can be misinterpreted and people can perceive objects that aren’t there especially if they have been told something’s there beforehand.

FYI, fooling sensors into providing false data is a core part of military strategy, it’s the motivation behind ECM, low-altitude interdiction, etc.

If you even remotely understood the topic you would realise that even the definition of UAP means absolutely nothing. If you have 10s of thousands of hours of sensor data over decades of course you’re going to have inputs you can’t map to physical objects, the fact that you can’t conclusively identify the source of the input doesn’t mean that it’s a magical object, or even a real one.

There’s a reason why physicists and the military aren’t dedicating extraordinary amounts of time on these, because we all know it’s nothing.

I actually have the same trackpad problem on a Windows 10 2-in-1. Seems it’s not unique to Linux.

Antibiotics one of the most prescribed and mass produced medicines in the world (short of possibly NSAIDs), doesn’t make any one money. There is absolutely no market incentive whatsoever.

You know it’s not necessary to lie about basic facts, if you don’t like capitalism there is much better points to criticise that don’t need to be fabricated.

Weird that you would showcase a vacuous article as an example of “research”.

Have a bit too high of an opinion of yourself don’t you?

Edit: Your UAP article is hilarious. You have a BS in bs, I mean psychology, and yet you are voicing an opinion on how QM totally corroborates with the data. You don’t even know how radar and infrared sensors work (and their inherent and potential flaws), and completely fail to consider that displacement of air at the velocity claimed would heat it several thousand degrees, not “quantum cooling”. The only way this wouldn’t happen would be if the object somehow didn’t interact with matter while simultaneously emitting electromagnetic radiation, or it was sensor errors.

You’re a complete fraud.

I’m sorry what was I supposed to say?

Your comment literally criticised by my argument on the basis that “It was just like Putin’s” which is not only false but completely irrelevant, who else shares my argument has no relevance to it’s accuracy.

So how am I supposed to respond to such a viciously anti-intellectual claim? Is it really so unacceptable to request that you actually produce reasoning for your argument? At the very least to demonstrate that you are mentally capable of holding this conversation?

FYI I never claimed that I was more knowledgeable than IR scholars, I said somewhat cheekily that you need to be educated (which you clearly aren’t) to effectively challenge my statement.

It’s really sad when one has to explain the insult when the recipient party is too stupid to understand.

“Can’t form a coherent thought”

Again I’m going to need some evidence of this, the fact that you failed to understand a statement, does not make it incoherent.

Unlike most people I actually do provide empirical and rational evidence for my core arguments, even the irrelevant insults. My intellectual standards are through the roof compared to you losers (losers because you are willingly too stupid and lazy, to actually learn empirical facts and provide arguments. See I just met a standard that you have still failed to meet).

I’ll just write it in an image macro format, it’s already been established that that is your primary source of information and you have yet to refute it.

They sure will.

“Your views are incoherent”

That’s often what happens when you fabricate positions. For asking so many questions, you really had no problem jumping to conclusions when it suited you.

My reason for saying that not all fertilised eggs have moral relevance, was NOT based on implantation, it was based on the very same criteria that pluripotent stem cells could have moral relevance. This is only tangentially related to the really egregious lie…

“Then why is your aborted egg immoral but discarded stem cells aren’t”

It isn’t. I already said that pluripotent stem cells ordered towards development of a grow person are morally relevant. You are flat out lying here.

I was even the person who brought this up explicitly to point out that the fixation on fertilised eggs by you (and most lay philosophers especially the pro-life ones) was flawed. Do you even remember what I said about it? I brought it up to account for a very specific edge case that I think the fertilised eggs argument fails on. I don’t think you remember or even understand what I said.

“By which you mean reasonable to me”

No, I mean reasonable as in very likely to. I would say over 50 percent provided we do not intervene in lowering it, but arguing over the specifics of the amount is not a debate I was interested in getting into, and you are clearly unequipped to do so.

“IVF clinic … I imagine a world”

Again, nobody cares what YOU imagine.

“You would also save the baby”

This is indeterminate, you can’t actually know what my actions would be.

I already gave an argument about why one’s actions in this circumstance would not be morally relevant, and you just ignored it without any reasoning besides “I think it would be crazy!”

And yet again, this argument is presupposing that the baby is morally relevant but the embryos are not.

“Bodily autonomy…despite it’s simplicity”

So you have no idea how moral systems are constructed.

The simplicity of a moral principle is not relevant. Saying “killing is good” is a very simple moral principle, that does not make it a strong or good principle.

The importance of complexity is in situations where we derive a moral principle. Not the actual complexity of the moral principle

We derive moral principles from simple situations to evaluate more complex situations.

All of these arguments that you insist are only solved by a right to bodily autonomy, are better accounted for by minimisation of harm. You seem to try to reject it as “trying to estimate harm” or “societal consequences” but you give no reason as to why these should be rejected. I gave a very good reason why bodily autonomy should be rejected as a description (because it fails to account for many circumstances, and better descriptions already exist for the circumstances it does account for) and you have flat out refused to rebut it.

FYI, the fact that it can be hard to estimate risk of total harm, does not mean that it is not the basis because there are obvious cases that are permitted with minimum risk and prohibited with high risk. In other words your arbitrary rejection likely relies on the continuum fallacy, but that is indeterminate because you never elaborated on why.

“The only conclusion…for religious or social reasons”

Yet again fabricating nonsense to make an argument (in this case poisoning the well).

For your information my pro-life position is relatively recent (probably about the past year) and comes from trying to reason about my positions and actions more formally (since I already studied formal logic as part of my coursework). I used to be pro-choice and over time I realized that it involved carving out exceptions that we have no basis for (aka special pleading). I would also like to add as a centre-left atheist, I do not in anyway benefit socially or religiously from my positions. Infact I’m largely equally enemies with my political and religious compatriots based on their reasoning for positions even if I agree with the conclusion.

While I think your argumentation is better than most people, you fundamentally didn’t understand many topics and arbitrarily rejected arguments without ever addressing the basis for them. All in all, it was a complete waste of a conversation/debate, but hopefully some other people will benefit from it.

“I’m not making the arguments you think I am.”

1. You actively avoided making concrete arguments, instead fishing for a specific response exactly like I accused you of. I’ve debated literally hundreds of people who think exactly like you, I know all your arguments it’s extremely mundane. Like I already pointed out you willfully ignore any actual criticism.

2. You 100 percent are making the arguments I said you were, you simply are ignoring my criticisms of them because it’s inconvenient for you.

You blanketly assert that because rape is wrong therefore bodily autonomy is sufficiently strong to permit active killing? How does this follow? Do you not realise the radical distinctions between the circumstances?

“A virtuous person should act (to save a drowning person”

Why? If it is not morally good and there is no obligation to do good, then on what basis do you assert that it is virtuous? This is you attempting to reject a conclusion because it disagrees with permitting abortion via bodily autonomy.

“I intuitively consider a 5-year old to be a person”

Why? As I already pointed out intuition isn’t just a mere feeling, it involves a great deal of logical evaluation to determine which feelings are more valid than others. I spent a fair amount of time on this so for you to just reject it as “hurr-durr my intuitions tell me” is pretty insulting but expected from an uneducated person.

FYI, nobody cares about your intuitions, we care about human intuitions. If you are some weird serial killer nobody is appealing to your specific reasoning but general human reasoning.

“Using laws as proxy” Awfully convenient that you chose laws that concern a duty to rescue and not guardianship. If there is a contradiction in laws (as there often is) should we really be citing them to construct a non-contradictory moral system?

“My rule of thumb as I said earlier”

Where? You never said this, infact you have been deliberately cagey about not making any claims that I had to deduce your arguments from the questions you asked.

It’s super dishonest of you probe for questions, while trying to hide your beliefs (poorly) and then ignore all the criticisms and rebuttals to popular arguments simply because you’re going to spam them at me and then refuse to listen to further refutations.

So your argument goes like this

1. A total moron is a mentally handicapped person
2. I am correct in calling you a total moron
3. If 1 AND 2 is true, then I am insulting a mentally handicapped person

Conclusions

1. People will not take me seriously making me irrational
2. If premise 2 is not true, then I made a false statement

Here’s where it fails, and I already warned you about this, calling someone “a total moron” is not a claim of mental handicap and hasn’t been for 60+ years it is a long deprecated medical term that is exclusively used as an insult towards the mentally competent.

So premise one is actually false, everyone recognizes that premise 1 is false therefore premise 3 is also false. And neither of the conclusions you are trying to assert are correct.

“with being so much smarter than me”

Clearly.

You can be mean to mentally handicapped people and still be correct.

Now you’re not actually mentally handicapped and it’s obvious, you just have moronic opinions and argumentation. So people would not be perceiving someone being mean to a mentally handicapped person.

I know what game you’re trying to play, but you’re messing it up and it just looks like your reinforcing your own admissions.

So you are admitting to being mentally handicapped?

Why do you try to drum up your stupidity for sympathy?

You’re clearly not mentally handicapped, you’re just a lazy mediocre person who sources their opinions from memes.

But next time I run into you you bet I’m going to be asking why a self-aware “mentally handicapped” person, is still repeating tropes that they know are wrong.

No, I make substantial criticisms and add some insults because I find it funny.

What it achieves is informing people and entertaining me.

Totally dude, would you like to flex your IR degree and show the world that this statement is correct?