Hypocrite.
No, private property existed extensively and private property rights were protected. You asked for the best example and that is about as close as you will get but it is far from a perfect example. You are correct that when discussing anyone supporting socialist policies that were implemented in Hong Kong the image could be used.
What is gold is completely refuting all your poor arguments in relation to the list.
This is gold.
So we've established that there is not a single capitalist society in all the world and never has been. As a libertarian, are you advocating a truly capitalist society and if so, why?
The MiG is communist.
I believe it will lead to the most prosperity and freedom for all.
So you believe that something that has never actually been tried or come close to be executed successfully will lead to the most prosperity and freedom for all? Why do you think that a capitalist society has never been tried and what makes you think that it is remotely possible...short of building the libertarian island that you referred to as "mainstream"?
In it's pure sense this is correct but it has been demonstrated that the more economically free a country is the higher the standard of living, quality of life and economic prosperity.
Economic Freedom & Quality of Life (Video) (3min)
Emotional beliefs in economic fallacies.
No, I was referring to the Libertarian island idea as not mainstream.
We'll get to this later, but I think there is substantial evidence that that a purely capitalist society does not lead to a higher the standard of living, quality of life and economic prosperity.
Let's focus on this. Why do emotional beliefs in economic fallacies prevent a purely capitalistic society? Where do these emotional beliefs stem from. And how do we realistically go about eradicating them?Emotional beliefs in economic fallacies.
Sorry, I misunderstood you original post. Are you looking forward to moving there? Are you not concerned about the long arm of American law which reaches it's citizens all over the world?No, I was referring to the Libertarian island idea as not mainstream.
If bureaucrats believe in economic fallacies they will enact anti-capitalist laws based on these beliefs. These beliefs come from emotional not logical reasoning. All you can do is try to convince them.
Let me try this again so you can understand it.
Your use of floating cities to represent "Libertarians" was a caricature (exaggerated or distorted view) of mainstream (common) Libertarian views. I never stated anything supporting them anywhere nor do I want to live there.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-03-2012 at 01:30 AM.
I wonder if he realizes that it just adds to his annoyance factor without adding any actual emphasis.
This is fun to watch.
Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.
So let's examine your claim.
Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.
Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.
Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity
Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is subs uted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no subs ute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.
To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.
This list of acedemic papers, all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These papers have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.
The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.
Here is the fallacy:
Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:
Next, we have to add in a little extra:
Now, we are getting somewhere.
We have to start messing with things a bit further:
Another step
This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.
Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:
Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?
There are two statements there.
1. "900/200000= 0.45%"
and
2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"
Kind of hard to get to:
from:
If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.
Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:
(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )
So what do you think? Was that simple and straightforward enough for you to see?I wonder if he realizes that it just adds to his annoyance factor without adding any actual emphasis.
This is fun to watch.
I noticed you or PT have rather deliberately not commented on it.
PopTart. Heh, that's funny too.
Wow...
Interesting read:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/...ain-900-times/
Looks like Andrew gets around.
I think wasting a little of my time on that bloke actually knocked my IQ down a few points – not unlike slamming your head into a brick wall!
Yikes.
The more one reads the more insane Poopdeck sounds. Well and truly insane, ala a slightly more sophisticated Cosmored of AGW Denial...
I am now slightly worried my butthurt man troll may escalate things beyond mere cyberstalking.
Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times"
The Truth about GreenfyreGreenfyre continues his dishonest and desperate attempt to attack the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list with the same lies, misinformation and strawman arguments that have all been refuted ad nauseam. He is so dishonest he refuses to even make corrections to things that have been shown irrefutably not be true. [...]
His absolute lack of integrity is demonstrated by the fact that he has never updated his original posts to correct any of the lies that were pointed out to him. In comparison the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list has had many corrections to it to fix various legitimate criticisms. As an example of his dishonesty; his original posts still contain the same lies that, Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are included in the peer-reviewed paper count. Anyone with an elementary ability to count knows this is irrefutably not true.
Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage.
Libel, I never cyberstalked anyone.
I wouldn't trust you to tell the "truth" about your own ass crack, you nutjob.
Although I am changing my siggy.
Rebutal to "Poptech's list of Confusion"
A quick example of his lies,An alarmist spammer who comments at Jo Nova's site by the screen name "Blimey" and around the Internet as "itsnotnova" continues doubling down on his insanity. After having his original blog post completely refuted he decided to add new lies, misinformation and strawman arguments to it.
Are "Letters" peer-reviewed in the scholarly journal "Nature". Yes or No?
You don't have to trust me, you just have to trust his own words,
Your desperation is setting in as you have nothing left."My experience is that many people are impressed and supportive of the radical militant actions that we do. ...I make no secret of my militant activism, arrests etc; [...]
...we do break the law. [...]
In a few weeks I, and 50 others are off to jail. ...I do what I do because of a "pure, true love for the Earth."
- Mike Kaulbars, 1990
Last edited by Poptech; 05-04-2012 at 12:05 AM.
I don't know that. Honestly after falling through the rabbit hole of your obsession, it gets creepy real fast once one starts scrolling through the links you post, and others post about you.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
