Page 117 of 134 FirstFirst ... 1767107113114115116117118119120121127 ... LastLast
Results 3,481 to 3,510 of 4001
  1. #3481
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    17,094
    This must be getting serious -- RG is using his big-boy fonts.
    DarrinS is offline

  2. #3482
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    You have failed to show an argumentum ad populum. I will not waste my time asking you for this again, you have been given enough opportunity to address it.

    Yes or no, if someone states something as factual, but cannot or will not prove it, is it logical to reject that statement?
    It was directly implied. Did you not read this the first time?

    My opinion on this will never change so don't waste your time.

    Your argumentum ad populum is noted.
    Poptech is offline

  3. #3483
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    You forgot to say "hypothetically".



    You can't, or won't, show me this hypothetical exercise.

    I got it.

    Hypothetically a lack of ability to explain ones statements or a lack of willingess to explain ones statements is the mark of a sophist.

    Hypothically, speaking that is.
    This was just explained to you,

    It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.

    This does not need the word hypothetically added to it.

    Your failure to show where I claimed you stated or implied this is the mark of a sophist.

    Do you not know what a hypothetical argument is?
    Poptech is offline

  4. #3484
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    They have now turned on each other,
    RG and I are two different people and he will tell you that we do not agree on everything by any measure. I suppose in your little myopic world that you do not understand that possibility exists but we often disagree and I have a healthy respect for him nonetheless. I have no respect for you whatsoever.
    _____________________________
    "The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll

    "Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken

    Officially Noted By Agloco

    Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas, vy65, DarrinS, Skull-1
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  5. #3485
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    This must be getting serious -- RG is using his big-boy fonts.


    He is aggravated because he was called out using an argumentum ad populum when he falsely claims to be a logical debater.
    Poptech is offline

  6. #3486
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899
    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.
    It means that argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant, it does not mean you stated or implied this.
    You have not, after being asked repeatedly shown how "this" or "that" argument can be used to believe the truth is irrelevant.

    I am forced, at this point, to believe that you cannot, or will not.

    I am not entirely sure what to make of this.

    If you cannot, that means you don't know, and made shit up. If you will not... that is a bit more open ended.


    Either way, you get added to my list. Thank you.
    _____________________________
    Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
    "it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."

    post6568713

    q: So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and someone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?
    vy65: "no, we cannot"

    QUOTE=vy65;6952966] I don't think harming other people is immoral. [/QUOTE
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #3487
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    You dropped the argument that you lack the credibility to be the arbiter of the set of total skeptic arguments or further what entails a skeptic argument for all of us to use.

    You have to have a defined set to cherry pick from or its not meaningful cherrypicking in the sense that its invalid.

    Now in argumentation when you drop an argument you concede it and we both know, my little sophist monkey, that we cannot have that.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  8. #3488
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899
    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.

    It was directly implied...

    That, again, is not an answer to my question, nor does it show the structure of your underlying charge. You saying it is implied, especially when it is not explicitly stated, nor even directly intended on my part, does not make it so.

    We both know the logical answer is, yes, it is logical to reject your statement.

    Your charge is rejected.

    (edit)

    Error redacted. Not quite a strawman.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2012 at 04:42 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3489
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    At least when I accused you of using the appeal to popularity I used the form. What I want to see is the meltdown he will have if we ever get him into what he considers a logical corner. its going to require what he considers a logical corner because of how his ego appears to work. Its only his truth that is relevant after all.

    He is kind of like Darrin that he would rather die than concede a point.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  10. #3490
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899
    At least when I accused you of using the appeal to popularity I used the form. What I want to see is the meltdown he will have if we ever get him into what he considers a logical corner. He is kind of like Darrin that he would rather die than concede a point.
    Still don't quite see it. (puzzled)

    I am willing to withdraw anything proven to be logically or factually flawed.

    Could you step me through it? Maybe PoopDeck will learn something.
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #3491
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899


    He is aggravated because he was called out using an argumentum ad populum when he falsely claims to be a logical debater.
    I am not aggravated.

    I just want you to not have the excuse of not being able to see it.

    Again, thanks for helping me prove the OP.
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #3492
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    2,362
    Poptech, as an impartial, but interested viewer of this debate, I must say that you are not bringing much to the table other than offering paradoxical reasoning while focusing on inconsequential minutiae like defending your use of the soviet flag and RG's supposed use of argumentum ad populum, which I do not think you effectively defended.

    You have open and unanswered questions to MiG (and RG) relating to the actual science. this particular sequence went unanswered by you:

    Originally Posted by Poptech
    Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined. I am aware of the papers on this subject.
    Originally Posted by Poptech
    The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.

    Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of climate cycles.
    Originally Posted by MiG
    Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
    Th'Pusher is offline

  13. #3493
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    Still don't quite see it. (puzzled)

    I am willing to withdraw anything proven to be logically or factually flawed.

    Could you step me through it? Maybe PoopDeck will learn something.
    If you are talking about his assertion then I have no clue. I have been wondering that myself and waiting for him to actually show the argument rather than just claim its existence.

    As for mine, it comes down to it its a problem with epistemology. I do not know your exact wording but you said you liked asking questions because it led to a concensus. I said that was an invalid reason for validity because the argument 'everyone agrees therefore it is true' is pretty much the definition of ad populum.

    OTOH, how can we know anything? Thats the other side of that particular coin as when it comes down to it cause is unknowable without having some rational construct to work with. I have yet to see a rational construct based on anything other than observation. Introduce the fallibility of sensory perception and the fallibility of inserting agreement for the truth and you are left with nothing. Its all that shit that Hume was getting at.

    So i get what you are saying to no small extent but when push comes to shove I guess i cannot agree with it wholeheartedly. Its the basis of the quote in my sig.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  14. #3494
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899
    as you did with your argumentum ad populum.
    [bla bla bla, big long exchange]

    My opinion on this...

    You are right to walk that back.

    Or did you forget to say "it is my opinion that your..."



    Awfully convenient to forget things like stating an opinion as a fact.

    Man, I wish I could wave my magic opinion wand and make them into facts. Can you share your magic power with me?
    RandomGuy is offline

  15. #3495
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899
    If you are talking about his assertion then I have no clue. I have been wondering that myself and waiting for him to actually show the argument rather than just claim its existence.

    As for mine, it comes down to it its a problem with epistemology. I do not know your exact wording but you said you liked asking questions because it led to a concensus. I said that was an invalid reason for validity because the argument 'everyone agrees therefore it is true' is pretty much the definition of ad populum.

    OTOH, how can we know anything? Thats the other side of that particular coin as when it comes down to it cause is unknowable without having some rational construct to work with. I have yet to see a rational construct based on anything other than observation. Introduce the fallibility of sensory perception and the fallibility of inserting agreement for the truth and you are left with nothing. Its all that shit that Hume was getting at.

    So i get what you are saying to no small extent but when push comes to shove I guess i cannot agree with it wholeheartedly. Its the basis of the quote in my sig.
    aaaaah. (nods)

    Gotcha. I see your point now. It *is* something of a paradox. Now you are getting into philosophy, which is a bit out of my normal area of interest.

    Thank you.
    RandomGuy is offline

  16. #3496
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899
    RG and I are two different people and he will tell you that we do not agree on everything by any measure. I suppose in your little myopic world that you do not understand that possibility exists but we often disagree and I have a healthy respect for him nonetheless. I have no respect for you whatsoever.
    It isn't the first time we have gotten into it either.

    One should never be afraid to call out someone, no matter how much you like them or respect them, or generally agree with them on most things.

    That is a hallmark of intellectual honesty and good faith.

    Something that seem to be in short supply these days.
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #3497
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    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.
    Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?

    The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".

    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.

    My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,

    The Truth about SourceWatch

    It is clearly used to equate socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.

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

    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.
    Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.

    Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?

    Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?

    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.
    Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.

    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.
    You have dodged this question again,

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

    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.
    I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a sophist?

    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.
    You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?

    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.
    Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.

    ...they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism.
    Was this the reason their papers were listed?

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


    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.
    Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.

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

    Can a corporation and a scientist hold the same position independently?
    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.

    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
    You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then your intent is to smear credentialed scientists.

    Do you have any evidence of corruption?
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-03-2012 at 11:05 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  18. #3498
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Either way, you get added to my list. Thank you.
    I can play this game as well. I will work on this in detail if you like?
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 06:53 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  19. #3499
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    Yay more questions inserted for arguments! So without further ado:

    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 documents 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.
    Linking liberals to Soviets and using large red effigies is not red scare tactics because the USSR was socialist! WOOHOO!

    Supporting socialist programs makes you a socialist but supporting capitalist programs does not make you a capitalist! WOOHOO!

    Ask more questions and pretend like its an adequate argument, monkey.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  20. #3500
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    21,899
    Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?

    The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".


    My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,

    The Truth about SourceWatch

    It is clearly used equate a socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.


    Then you are arguing a strawman.


    Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.

    Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?

    Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?


    Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.


    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 am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a Sophist?


    You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?


    Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.



    Was this the reason their papers were listed?

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



    Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.

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

    Can an industry and a scientist hold the same position independently?

    You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then you intent is to smear credentialed scientists.

    Do you have any evidence of corruption?
    Do you have any evidence of a "new thread" button? hint hint
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #3501
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    You dropped the argument that you lack the credibility to be the arbiter of the set of total skeptic arguments or further what entails a skeptic argument for all of us to use.

    You have to have a defined set to cherry pick from or its not meaningful cherrypicking in the sense that its invalid.

    Now in argumentation when you drop an argument you concede it and we both know, my little sophist monkey, that we cannot have that.
    And don't forget about this, monkey.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  22. #3502
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    Don't forget this either:

    Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  23. #3503
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    You dropped the argument that you lack the credibility to be the arbiter of the set of total skeptic arguments or further what entails a skeptic argument for all of us to use.
    It is a strawman argument.

    You have to have a defined set to cherry pick from or its not meaningful cherrypicking in the sense that its invalid.
    My list is a defined set.

    Now in argumentation when you drop an argument you concede it and we both know, my little sophist monkey, that we cannot have that.
    Not when it is a strawman argument.
    _____________________________
    1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

    List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies

    The Truth about Skeptical Science

    "If you take down your 'Truth' series and post an apology then I will not send the email. If you don't the email goes out tomorrow. If you put up any more 'Truth' articles then they get an email detailing what you are as well." - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins

    "I will admit that I smoke pot" - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins
    Poptech is offline

  24. #3504
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    It is a strawman argument.


    My list is a defined set.


    Not when it is a strawman argument.
    Why is you set the standard by which all other lists are to be judged by? He never stated that he was pulling from your list so you can not argue that he is cherry picking from your list.

    Its not a strawman. You are apparently just too dense to understand the argument or the logical extension of what you claim.

    You also dropped this, monkey:

    Originally Posted by MiG

    Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  25. #3505
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Poptech, as an impartial, but interested viewer of this debate, I must say that you are not bringing much to the table other than offering paradoxical reasoning while focusing on inconsequential minutiae like defending your use of the soviet flag and RG's supposed use of argumentum ad populum, which I do not think you effectively defended.

    You have open and unanswered questions to MiG (and RG) relating to the actual science. this particular sequence went unanswered by you:
    You seemed confused about why I am here. My only reason for being here is to correct misinformation stated about the list or other articles. When those criticizing the list failed they went into tangential arguments about climate change.

    Once I stated, "Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined." his whole line of argumentation following was irrelevant because he was attempting to show that if the existence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes X amount of temperature change and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising with the anthropogenic CO2 fraction of this being Y then it will cause a temperature increase of Z and the anthropogenic fraction would be appreciable.

    I will state my position simply,

    There is empirical evidence for a very mild global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability. Any future increases in temperature are likely to be minor as well and overall beneficial to man. I completely reject AGW Alarm on all grounds.
    Poptech is offline

  26. #3506
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Yay more questions inserted for arguments! So without further ado:
    I already responded to this,
    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.
    Can the flag of the former U.S.S.R. be used for things other than this?

    The only thing relevant is how I used the flag which had nothing to do with the "Red Scare".

    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.

    My apologies, I was not aware you were such a fan of this flag and would have posted it the first time. You can find this image in this article,

    The Truth about SourceWatch

    It is clearly used to equate socialism to an organization that holds socialist (anti-capitalist) views.

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

    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.
    Yes everyone who fully understands that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies and that public ownership of companies is socialist are socialists. I do not lump in those who are unaware of what a mixed economy actually is and may "support" it without fully understanding it. In these cases I give them the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant.

    Are you denying that a mixed economy includes publicly owned companies?

    Are you denying that public ownership of companies is socialist?

    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.
    Supporting the existence of property laws in some form does not make you a capitalist on this support alone.

    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.
    You have dodged this question again,

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

    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.
    I am unconvinced. Why are you lying about me behaving like a sophist?

    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.
    You need to quote what you are talking about. What argument did I dodge?

    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.
    Their objections based on false reasoning does not make them valid.

    ...they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism.
    Was this the reason their papers were listed?

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


    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.
    Since you do not know you cannot claim his position regarding AGW is in relation to funding. You have failed to provide any evidence of corruption.

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

    Can an industry and a scientist hold the same position independently?
    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.

    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
    You have already stated your corruption concerns and have failed to provide evidence of any corruption. These are very serious allegations. If you cannot support them, then your intent is to smear credentialed scientists.

    Do you have any evidence of corruption?
    Linking liberals to Soviets and using large red effigies is not red scare tactics because the USSR was socialist! WOOHOO!
    Yes my usage of the flag of the U.S.S.R. has nothing to do with the "Red Scare". Images of that flag can be used for other purposes besides the anti-communist movement from the first half of the 20th century in the United States.

    Supporting socialist programs makes you a socialist but supporting capitalist programs does not make you a capitalist! WOOHOO!
    If you are a Capitalist you do not believe in publicly owned or nationalized industries. Thus those who believe in a mixed economy (which includes publicly owned or nationalized industries) are socialists.

    Ask more questions and pretend like its an adequate argument, monkey.
    The questions I asked were relevant and you have conceded those points.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 08:12 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  27. #3507
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    Its only his truth that is relevant after all.
    This is incorrect.

    He is kind of like Darrin that he would rather die than concede a point.
    I have conceded valid points many times.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-03-2012 at 11:08 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  28. #3508
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    2,362
    You seemed confused about why I am here. My only reason for being here is to correct misinformation stated about the list or other articles. When those criticizing the list failed they went into tangential arguments about climate change.

    Once I stated, "Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined." his whole line of argumentation following was irrelevant because he was attempting to show that if the existence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes X amount of temperature change and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising with the anthropogenic CO2 fraction of this being Y then it will cause a temperature increase of Z and the anthropogenic fraction would be appreciable.

    I will state my position simply,

    There is empirical evidence for a very mild global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability. Any future increases in temperature are likely to be minor as well and overall beneficial to man. I completely reject AGW Alarm on all grounds.
    That's progress. Glad we have your position on record. Since you're not interested in debating your position, you can rest assured that your blog will continue to provide "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" unfettered.

    By the way, make sure and keep us posted on how your self-ruling floating libertarian city is flourishing. I know I am interested in how that untenable misadventure turns out!
    Th'Pusher is offline

  29. #3509
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,049
    So I just want to get this straight.

    If you believe in socialist policies then you are a socialist.

    If you believe in capitalist policies then you are a capitalist.

    If you believe in a mix of both capitalist and socialist policies then you are a socialist but not a capitalist?

    Not only that but if you believe in any socialist policy whatsoever then you feel its merited to use this picture



    for a header in an article describing them?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  30. #3510
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Post Count
    604
    That's progress. Glad we have your position on record. Since you're not interested in debating your position, you can rest assured that your blog will continue to provide "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" unfettered.
    My position has been stated online many times.

    By the way, make sure and keep us posted on how your self-ruling floating libertarian city is flourishing. I know I am interested in how that untenable misadventure turns out!
    I do not subscribe to caricatures of mainstream libertarian positions.

    Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Video) (25min)
    Poptech is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •