Message from @Marushia Dark

Discord ID: 638788214559080468


2019-10-29 17:14:06 UTC  

Don't bother trying to argue

2019-10-29 17:14:20 UTC  

again, he is quoting the EXACT same sources that support interesctionality

2019-10-29 17:14:25 UTC  

these are flawed

2019-10-29 17:14:33 UTC  

@Jack of Trades aye she was holding back a tear lul, she framed it to favour her of course

2019-10-29 17:14:33 UTC  

Wikipedia isn't a source.

2019-10-29 17:14:37 UTC  

It's a source of sources.

2019-10-29 17:14:44 UTC  

meaning it's a source

2019-10-29 17:14:49 UTC  

The people who came up with this are not the same people who came up with intersectionality.

2019-10-29 17:14:58 UTC  

funny how the composite argument works for you but not against you

2019-10-29 17:15:06 UTC  

@ubermensch It's nuanced. There are forms that are and forms that aren't. Like gluten-free. There are people who have cyliac disease and then there are people who like to claim they're gluten free but have no biological intolerance for it. They do it to virtue signal or to lose weight or whatever.

2019-10-29 17:15:07 UTC  

What I mean is

2019-10-29 17:15:10 UTC  

I’d say intersectionality in of itself is not even a foundational idea. Considering how fucking shaky they make it.

2019-10-29 17:15:11 UTC  

No one cites Wikipedia

2019-10-29 17:15:17 UTC  

differntials have more than one component

2019-10-29 17:15:22 UTC  

they cite the condensed version of the studies that support them

2019-10-29 17:15:32 UTC  

Wikipedia is the vehicle not the passenger

2019-10-29 17:15:43 UTC  

examine the studies THEMSELVES

2019-10-29 17:15:58 UTC  

look for FALISFICATION, requared to make a study legit science

2019-10-29 17:16:03 UTC  

fuck off I'm not paying $40 for a study to fight an argument on Sargon's discord

2019-10-29 17:16:07 UTC  

you WILL NOT find an y

2019-10-29 17:16:18 UTC  

Dude, you're reaching, given that I linked to a science article before and you called it pseudo-science without explanation

2019-10-29 17:16:18 UTC  

@Marushia Dark well that means their just arguing for subjectivism in their ideas. Because if it’s subjective it can always change and you can’t argue against it lol.

2019-10-29 17:16:22 UTC  

I'm confused

2019-10-29 17:16:31 UTC  

you want me to prove the theory is false to cite it as proof

2019-10-29 17:16:44 UTC  

Guys

2019-10-29 17:16:50 UTC  

I'm an expert with MA

2019-10-29 17:16:57 UTC  

It is futile trying to argue

2019-10-29 17:17:08 UTC  

What are you a zoologist for manimals?

2019-10-29 17:17:13 UTC  

@ubermensch It's not subjective. Some people have a genetic disorder, some just wanna be special.

2019-10-29 17:17:15 UTC  

Yes

2019-10-29 17:17:20 UTC  

All I kno is I’m pretty sure some behavior is innate

2019-10-29 17:17:26 UTC  

And some of it is learned

2019-10-29 17:17:39 UTC  

^

2019-10-29 17:17:57 UTC  

if humans had no innate behaviour we'd all be extinct lol

2019-10-29 17:17:59 UTC  

@Marushia Dark well their claim is that it’s subjective that it can’t be defined. Hence you can’t classify it therefore it’s all out the gate.

2019-10-29 17:18:10 UTC  

MA doesn't even now what differential math means

2019-10-29 17:18:23 UTC  

to be fair neither do I but I wasn't trying to cite it

2019-10-29 17:18:45 UTC  

and that's totally fair, tbh @fvriovs

2019-10-29 17:18:54 UTC  

I've always been shit at maths

2019-10-29 17:19:02 UTC  

You'll just summon him again