Darrin dodges questions, again.
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?
Darrin dodges questions, again.
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.
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.
You have dodged the question,
Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?
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.
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.
In this specific instance I have a very hard time believing you knowingly voted Libertarian and were fully aware of their views.
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?
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.
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?
Was this the reason their papers were listed?
Does the list include papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm?
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?
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."
So AGW Alarm proponents advocate for government?
Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 03:30 PM.
Why are you describing your friends behavior here?
Because you have not made a good point.
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."
I forgot to add the word "hypothetically" before the statement.
Is the use of an argumentum ad populum to criticize the validity of my list a logical fallacy? Yes or No?
Is what is considered "running things fairly" subjective?
Support this statement.
They have now turned on each other,
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?
Start another thread on the topic, if you are interested.
heh, this one is busy enough.
You are unaware of what a hypothetical argument is?
This is a very serious allegation surely you can support it.
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.
Surely I can.
In a different thread.
Try this one:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165295
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.
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.
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.
You must not have done very well in school.
It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)