Page 139 of 161 FirstFirst ... 3989129135136137138139140141142143149 ... LastLast
Results 3,451 to 3,475 of 4001
  1. #3451
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I stopped watching at the point where it showed bulldozers shoveling piles of bodies at some concentration camp.

    I figured that once you go there, you aren't interested in the science.
    LOL...

    Really...

    That was in the video, not my words, and an example of what politically motivated science can lead to.

    If scare tactics are what you say isn't science, then why are you listening to the alarmists?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  2. #3452
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,442
    Darrin dodges questions, again.

    MannyIsGod is online now

  3. #3453
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    What it does is get some common ground put together about things everybody agrees with,
    IOW, make your premise look valid. That right there is Ad Populum.

    I can see the want to hold people accountable ie not go back on things especially around here but that still does not make it a valid line of reasoning.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  4. #3454
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    IOW, make your premise look valid. That right there is Ad Populum.

    I can see the want to hold people accountable ie not go back on things especially around here but that still does not make it a valid line of reasoning.
    Coming to things that everybody can agree is true is not Ad Populum.

    If we both observe two cups on the table, and then say together "i see two cups on the table", that is not a logical fallacy, because both have observed it, and come to a parallel conclusion.

    Ad populum is when you listen to a room full of people saying there are 3 cups on the table, and, without looking for yourself, say that they are right.

    Are you trying to say that people debating something could never agree on something without that being logically flawed? Observable truth is observable truth, and irrespective of who observes it.
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #3455
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Coming to things that everybody can agree is true is not Ad Populum.

    If we both observe two cups on the table, and then say together "i see two cups on the table", that is not a logical fallacy, because both have observed it, and come to a parallel conclusion.

    Ad populum is when you listen to a room full of people saying there are 3 cups on the table, and, without looking for yourself, say that they are right.

    Are you trying to say that people debating something could never agree on something without that being logically flawed? Observable truth is observable truth, and irrespective of who observes it.
    The fallacy is independent of human perception.

    Everyone agrees this to be true
    Therefore it is true.

    The form is not

    Everyone has not looked but everyone agrees
    therefor its true

    Sorry but that is just the case
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  6. #3456
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    The fallacy is independent of human perception.

    Everyone agrees this to be true
    Therefore it is true.

    The form is not

    Everyone has not looked but everyone agrees
    therefor its true

    Sorry but that is just the case



    You and RG must be a lot of fun at parties.
    DarrinS is offline

  7. #3457
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Yeah why would anyone think that you equate 'anti-capitalism,' 'socialism,' and 'communism?'
    You have dodged the question,

    Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?

    Also considering your standards then the vast majority of Americans support some facet of a mixed economy, which means they can be labeled as anti-capitalist, which means they can be labeled as socialist/communist. Most Americans for over a century merit the hammer and sickle treatment. Lovely.
    Not necessarily communist but irrefutably socialist. Just because a certain amount of American's support socialism does not make them any less socialist,

    Mixed Economy (defined) - "an economy in which some industries are privately owned and others are publicly owned or nationalized".

    Those who support a mixed economy are socialists.

    You certainly like calling me dishonest. You claim no relevance to the Red Scare yet you choose the Soviet sickle and hammer and then try and dissemble like this. Quit being an intellectual coward.
    I choose an image of a socialist state to accurately represent an organization that is run by socialists. This had absolutely nothing to do with the anti-communism movement in the first half of the 20th century in the United States.

    As for you not believing i would vote for the Libertarian Party, i really don't care. As I stated I support the notion of a third party not the parties particular platform. I try giving political capital to third parties because I think our political system lacks plurality. i want more voices to be heard so I vote for the other voices trying to be heard.

    I often find libertarian to be the only alternative option. Unfortunately I all too often find only the existing two parties and turn in an unfilled ballot.
    In this specific instance I have a very hard time believing you knowingly voted Libertarian and were fully aware of their views.

    As for your question about what their list includes in total in regards your list the answer is obvious. I am not going to play your ty psuedo-Socratic method game. Call it avoidance all you want. Try to find a person other than yourself who cares. If you have a point then make one.
    You don't like these games your friends here play?

    You have dodged this question again,

    Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list? Yes or No?

    I also never claimed you made an argument based on Buckley. I am just saying that the most respected conservative intellectual of the twentieth century found your tactics reprehensible. The point in that is its a widely held view across the political spectrum that the Red Scare tactic is lame.
    You respect Buckley? Who is considered respected is subjective. I used no such related "tactic". Why do you keep lying about my correct usage of a flag of a socialist state to represent an organization that holds socialist views? My usage of that image had absolutely nothing to do with the anti-communist movement in the first half of the 20th century in the United States.

    As for being an arbiter. Its that you extend your standard of what you think to how everyone else should think or behave. Are you really that dumb? Why is your list the standard by which their list should be judged? Because you 'think' something just lacks vehemence and credibility.
    I made no such claim. What I did do was demonstrate that the Skeptical Science link cherry picked papers.

    Do you consider a list that claims to present both sides of an argument on a website, where the administration is aware of peer-reviewed papers for one side of the argument but fails to include these papers on their list, to be intellectually honest in their presentation of both sides of an argument?

    Their comments from that blog post indicates why they don't want their papers on your list. I am not going to play your ty attempt at socratic method. they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism. They went so far in some of those papers to anticipate your kind and made disclaimers of their own.
    Was this the reason their papers were listed?

    Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?

    I also have no idea when his particular association with the energy lobby began. What we know is that he does have one and despite your claims to the contrary it does display a conflict of interest. As does his work with the coal industry. Skepticism is merited in my view.
    These are very serious charges,

    Do you have evidence he received monetary donations from energy companies in the 1980s?

    Has his position on AGW changed due to a funding source?

    You can sit there and claim cognitive dissonance all you want. However i see no contradiction in skepticism towards behavior that was exhibited with the tobacco industry and their scientists 50 years ago.
    Thank you for proving my point,

    "It is emotionally easier for them to believe climate skeptics are all either conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious zealots, right-wing partisans, corrupt or evil."

    I know its a stretch but maybe people advocate for people that pay them.
    So AGW Alarm proponents advocate for government?
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 03:30 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  8. #3458
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Oh and I want to make one more comment. Asking loaded questions that affirm what you consider part of your argument is fallacious. You do it again and again and then act as if its significant when you do not get an answer.

    When you lack knowledge and are trying to obtain it that is one thing. At that point it makes sense to point to the evasiveness as it demonstrates a desire to hide something.

    Thats not the game you are playing here. You are asking questions that if answered you can crow 'see I told you so.' Its a weak tactic and shows nothing other than the need to appeal to dramatics.
    Why are you describing your friends behavior here?
    Poptech is offline

  9. #3459
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    However, he is evasive, and does not admit that anyone might make a good point, and accedes as little as possible.
    Because you have not made a good point.

    If you can't accede someone you disagree with has a point, that provides more proof that skeptics tend to act like 9-11 truthers.
    Thank you for continuing to prove my point,

    "It is emotionally easier for them to believe climate skeptics are all either conspiracy theorists, creationists, religious zealots, right-wing partisans, corrupt or evil."
    Poptech is offline

  10. #3460
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Really?

    Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

    If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.
    I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.
    Poptech is offline

  11. #3461
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    That is not an argumentum ad populum.

    I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

    That is your implication. Not mine.

    I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.
    Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?
    Poptech is offline

  12. #3462
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Libertarianism looks good on paper, but would fail to provide a workable government for a large country, as it does not do anything to overcome resource assymetry, to my knowledge. That is a huge problem, when it comes to running things fairly.
    Is what is considered "running things fairly" subjective?

    In this, it is much like communism, IMO.
    Support this statement.
    Poptech is offline

  13. #3463
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    They have now turned on each other,
    As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

    Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.
    Poptech is offline

  14. #3464
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Shouldn't you be busy building the Ark and loading pairs of animals?
    Poptech is offline

  15. #3465
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.
    I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

    Did I miss something?

    Once again, I want to know how you got to

    "using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

    From what I said.

    Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.
    That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
    So when you said:

    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


    What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?
    A hypothetical exercise.
    Really?

    Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

    If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.
    I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.
    You forgot.

    Okaaaay.

    Please step me through this hypothetical exercise. I would hate for the potential to exist for anything I might think to lead to truth being irrelevant.

    Can you step me through this hypothetical exercise or not?
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #3466
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Is what is considered "running things fairly" subjective?


    Support this statement.
    Start another thread on the topic, if you are interested.

    heh, this one is busy enough.
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #3467
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    You forgot.

    Okaaaay.

    Please step me through this hypothetical exercise. I would hate for the potential to exist for anything I might think to lead to truth being irrelevant.

    Can you step me through this hypothetical exercise or not?
    You are unaware of what a hypothetical argument is?
    Poptech is offline

  18. #3468
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    In this, it [Libertarianism] is much like communism, IMO.
    Start another thread on the topic, if you are interested.

    heh, this one is busy enough.
    This is a very serious allegation surely you can support it.
    Poptech is offline

  19. #3469
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    There is no irony as the numerical total of the list is factual. No argument is made that this is more or less than something else as you did with your argumentum ad populum.
    That is not an argumentum ad populum.

    I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

    That is your implication. Not mine.

    I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

    This also got ignored.

    You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

    Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

    I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html


    If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.
    Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?
    Yes, the use of a defined logical fallacy to attempt to prove/disprove something is a logical fallacy.

    Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.
    RandomGuy is offline

  20. #3470
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    This is a very serious allegation surely you can support it.
    Surely I can.

    In a different thread.

    Try this one:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165295
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #3471
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.
    I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

    Did I miss something?

    Once again, I want to know how you got to

    "using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

    From what I said.

    Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.
    That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
    So when you said:

    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


    What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?
    A hypothetical exercise.
    Really?

    Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

    If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.
    I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.
    You forgot.

    Okaaaay.

    Please step me through this hypothetical exercise. I would hate for the potential to exist for anything I might think to lead to truth being irrelevant.

    Can you step me through this hypothetical exercise or not?
    You are unaware of what a hypothetical argument is?
    Answering a question with a question is evasive.

    Yes or no, can you show me this hypothetical exercise?

    (edit)
    This is the fourth time the same basic question has been asked.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2012 at 03:55 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #3472
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Yes it is.

    Now prove that my question/statement is as you claim.
    If your intent was to just see a "wider picture" then you would have initially stated this, you did not. My opinion on this will never change so don't waste your time.
    Poptech is offline

  23. #3473
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Yeah because use of the giant red flag of the USSR has nothing to do with the tactics about scaring the American populace with concern over the rising influence of the Soviet union.

    You have quoted everything so far in your line by line but you deleted the picture. Lets go ahead and post it again so if people read this they can see what is being talked about.



    No one is arguing your use of a socialist state. We are arguing the gratuitous use of that particular state.

    Intellectual cowardice at its finest.

    So by your standard everyone in America is socialist. I reject that standard as I imagine would most Americans. You can label things all you like. You do seem to like doing that.

    Contra that is that most Americans supporting property laws makes them capitalist too.

    I think at that point given your standard the conclusion obviously is that socialist does not imply anti-capitalist or the reverse by your definition.

    That would be the third time i have answered that particular question. As to your last little dig, my point is you both do it. You can bold your questions and wave your hands all you like. Its meaningless posturing. if you cannot figure out the obvious thats your problem and if you want me to begin the premise of your argument, you can forget about it.

    Its a weak and obvious tactic in a game that I do not play.

    As for voting for the Libertarian Party, I have stated my reasoning. Its obvious from the result of every election ever that they have a chance of nil of winning and I have told you about my desire for more plurality in the American system. Most libertarians that i have met do not behave as a sophist like you do and the notion of a third political voice having a say appeals to me more than your obvious limited imagination can conceive of.

    As for your next bolded question, I again am not going to answer it. I have told you why. You dodged the argument by trying to place the blame on RG however its quite obvious you exhibit the same behavior to a much greater degree.

    Now I will extend my same arguments again. Those authors objected to their inclusion on the list. They have asked specifically to be taken off the list unless I am mistaken. Meehl, I believe, went so far to go to say that using his analysis is improper for describing trends.

    This leaves you a choice. You can ask your question again which once again i will repeat myself or you can actually make your argument for yourself. I am sure you will try and discredit me instead. Oh well.

    I asked when his relationship with the energy lobby began. I don't know. thats the entire basis of your argument. Its known that he does and its also known that he has worked with the coal lobby regarding advertisement campaigns.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/bu...anted=2&src=pm

    Now as I stated I have a concern with scientists that behave in the same way as tobacco scientists that worked with cigarette manufacturers in the first half of the twentieth century until now.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0106164921.htm

    Their tactics are widely publicized. Oil and tobacco magnates have lobbied together and worked in tandem before like with the Heritage Foundation with Phillip-Morris and ExxonMobil so yes I have a very healthy skepticism as these are the same people that brought us



    As for the last, i think that the influence of agencies such as the NSF or NASA has on the scientists they endorse should be very concerning. The difference however is there is at least a measure of oversight and accountability.

    Further, unlike when dealing with ExxonMobil, we can file for discovery of do ents using the Freedom of Information Act. I see no obvious economic benefit to them making a conclusion one way or another. OTOH, the impact for the energy lobby is obvious. Its saying their product is unsafe.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  24. #3474
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You and RG must be a lot of fun at parties.
    You must not have done very well in school.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  25. #3475
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Yes or no, can you show me this hypothetical exercise?
    It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.
    Poptech is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •