How to explain getting banned (hypothetical)

[SPF]

Funny thing happened, I joined a LGBT forum and told them they were all perverts and I got banned, I then joined two more LGBT forums, said the same thing, and was banned from both of them.  Then I joined a minorities only forum and told them I was white and better, I was banned.  Then I joined two atheist forums and told them God hated them and that it was their fault they didn't know they were sinners, I was banned there.

Honestly though, I think there's a conspiracy out to ban me from forums.  Most things are never my fault, they're  almost always someone else's fault. 

[bskeptic]

They can't handle the truth!!   

[Mammal]

Nothing in science is in fact true.

I suggest that you steer clear of science forums otherwise that trend is likely to continue...

[Trinity]

SPF,

You did nothing wrong and they banned you? How 'tolerant' of them.

Mammal,

What is true to you is not true to me when there is relativity in science. Name one thing that is in fact true in science, you'll find out it is relative. This is called (post)modern science.

[Mammal]

What is true to you is not true to me when there is relativity in science. Name one thing that is in fact true in science, you'll find out it is relative. This is called (post)modern science.

[Facepalm moment] So some science is either more true, or less true relative to other science? I guess that would be kind of relevant if you compare for example a hypothesis with a theory. Or are you implying that because science is falsifiable, it cannot never be true? That would be the same as saying that people getting caught for criminal offences are always innocent. So how about science (as in scientific theories) being true until proven false..?

[Trinity]

Interesting questions, but not really relevant to the hypothetical.

Poll added.

[Crash Test]

Crash,

I don't think that, rather the hypothetical is such that conspiring moderators are considered as a possible explanation.

From another poster, I'd take this to mean "This is an utterly pointless hypothetical, because it is too ridiculous to resemble reality".

From you I'm interpreting it to mean: "I will accept literally any ridiculous idea that supports my preconceptions, but I like to cloud this in non-committal terms".

[Trinity]

Crash,

You want it resemble reality?

[SPF]

"What is true to you is not true to me when there is relativity in science. Name one thing that is in fact true in science, you'll find out it is relative. This is called (post)modern science."

That water boils at 212 degrees at sea level, and then at each 500 foot increase in elevation the boiling point drops by just under 1 degree.

Would that not be a scientific fact?

[Trinity]

SPF,

How do you measure 500 ft? How do you measure 212 F?

[AnimatedDirt]

"What is true to you is not true to me when there is relativity in science. Name one thing that is in fact true in science, you'll find out it is relative. This is called (post)modern science."

That water boils at 212 degrees at sea level, and then at each 500 foot increase in elevation the boiling point drops by just under 1 degree.

Would that not be a scientific fact?

The Myth of the Boiling Point

This title gave me a chuckle that one person promotes truth with the boiling point of water and another promotes the boiling point of water as myth.

[SPF]

How do you measure 500 ft? How do you measure 212 F?

With measuring instruments. Or, in the case of 500 feet, you could do it manually if you didn't trust the ruler in your hand.

[Trinity]

Measuring instruments can shrink on relativity, space and time can expand and contract. Relativity is weird like that.

[wonderer]

Measuring instruments can shrink on relativity, space and time can expand and contract. Relativity is weird like that.

On relativity, a ruler that is stationary relative to what is being measured won't shrink.  If you are moving your ruler at relativistic speeds relative to what you are measuring, you are just doing it wrong.

[Trinity]

Wonderer,

Actually, a ruler that is stationary relative to what is being measured will shrink, the difference is that it shrinks at the same rate as what is being measured (assuming both are in motion), so net result appears as if neither shrunk. This is theoretical, of course, because no actual shrinkage has been measured and no shrinkage can be measured.