No it’s character assassination which is against the rules here, attack the argument not the person but we both know you can’t do that bud.

No it doesn’t, use a dictionary. It’s not ableist you’re just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that’s about the tamest informal you’re likely to hear.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft

Its exactly what you implied you’re just aware now that it makes very little sense.

Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it’s the tab with the big d on it.

Oh you’re funny assuming I haven’t and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day.

Aww, just personal attacks now? Have you given up on your weak ass argument already?

Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance.

By jury generally.

The question isn’t are they opinions it’s do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys.

It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud.

That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply.

It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities.

So far you’ve proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot.

That’s why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you’re not making the point you think you are because that’s a sticking point in science.

It’s just been referred to as “natural ___” since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it’ll take a minute to break the habit.

Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists.

Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation.

Quite literally the exact reason it’s not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn’t a thing.

Daft isn’t ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh?

Add all of those together and it still doesn’t equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn’t possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that’s daft and tedious, you could have just said so.

Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn’t at all apply here and it isn’t at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can’t argue substance.

We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, cool try though.

You literally described society ya genius.

That doesn’t negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie.

Holy shit you’re either playing daft and are tedious or you’re tedious and daft. When it’s worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences.

If that’s your deductive prowess on display it’s no wonder you seen confused.

Morals are weightless and made up homie

They’re not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless.

There isn’t, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn’t a single social science but rather many sciences that don’t amount to society when you add them together.

They aren’t, parts of social issues are hence the plethora of social sciences. You can’t objectively quantify the squishy human bits you can just narrow down the effect of the squishy stuff by quantifying what is objective.

There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There’s social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it’s not a science.)

Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren’t sciences and sociology isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn’t a science at all it’s a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn’t science.

Neat?

There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn’t objectively testable.

It’s also not an excuse, it doesn’t need to be scientific since societal issues aren’t scientific and there is no legitimate social sciences.