Wow.
Ok, that is one sweeping generalization.
Does the fact that some evironmentalists get violently radicalized mean that environmentalists are wrong about anything? Yes or no?
And I'm sure he weaves all this into a giant conspiracy against him and his ideas in his head.
Because it could not possibly be because of anything he has done, or weaknesses in his ideas, as he is faultless, and his ideas flawless.
Wow.
Ok, that is one sweeping generalization.
Does the fact that some evironmentalists get violently radicalized mean that environmentalists are wrong about anything? Yes or no?
Carbon energy corp, Exxon and Kock Bros, spewing lies and confusion, buying "scientists", about global warming while their scientists try to figure out how they can increase business with global warming
ExxonMobil And Climate Change
Until 2005, ExxonMobil was run by Lee "Iron Ass" Raymond, a close friend of Vice President Cheney and a skeptic of climate change. During Raymond's tenure, Exxon funded campaigns to challenge the validity of emerging science about climate change — specifically the findings that a global warming trend existed.
"This not only borrowed from some of the tactics that the tobacco industry had used to delay public understanding of the dangers of smoking; in some cases there were even overlaps of individuals and groups that were engaged in this communications campaign," Coll tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "A lot of corporate America opposed the Kyoto Accords. But only a small set of companies did what Exxon did, which was to really go after the science as aggressively as they did."
Coll says the campaign helped manufacture confusion and perpetual controversy about climate change.
"It created an impression in the media and the public that there was a raging, deep controversy among scientists, and there wasn't a controversy, at least after 2002, when the doubts fell away in the face of evidence," he says. "It was the evidence and the modeling and the very science that ExxonMobil was calling into doubt that gradually became more and more alarming and attracted more and more support within the scientific community."
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/02/151842...e?sc=17&f=1007
Do you Kock suckers even know what you're sucking on?
Oh please, "weasely" is a new one but no. Paranoid, no. Collecting "enemies", no they already existed. Collecting friends, yes. Various corrections have been made to the list based on valid points. I only show up on a new forum if some nonsense is stated about the list there.
I only get banned or censored from mainly environmentalist and some far-left sites. The reasons are always contrived and hypocritical when applied to other commentators there.
Do the Koch Brothers support increasing military spending?
Do the Koch Brothers support the Patriot Act?
Do the Koch Brothers support Gay Marriage?
I was being sarcastic and it was not meant to imply all do, rather that FuzzyLumpkins does not have a good defense for why they would be carrying around a pipebomb unless it was for a eco-terrorist plot. The fact that they blew themselves up instead of hurting an innocent person is just dumb luck.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-04-2012 at 09:51 AM.
These all have false premises. Try again monkey.
It's amazing how you will take assertions from those two random blogs and pump up even the most tenuous links. Those two united blogs are great. You just have it written through them so you can make the connection but claim you didn't. It's a text book smear campaign as you do it against ask of your"enemies"
No, those are questions I asked.
I am aware you are incapable of answering questions, no need to laugh about it.
This is what I was referring to. Perhaps not one and the same.....in cahoots possibly.
Oh we are still on these? I do not believe in any delusional conspiracy theories like JFK or UFOs,
Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T6Q_Jes9g0w
Good ole Heartland.
I'm pretty sure Poptech thinks this is OK because they are not misrepresenting Ted's position.
Ted was found to have read the Earth First! Journal.I'm pretty sure Poptech thinks this is OK because they are not misrepresenting Ted's position.
Hey isn't that the organization Greenfyre founded a chapter of? Small world.Theodore "the Unabomber" Kaczynski is the radical environmental movement's biggest black eye. Conventional wisdom dictates that Kaczynski was merely an intellectual serial-killer, but his connection to Earth First! and the broader eco-terror movement is undeniable.
When FBI agents raided Kaczynski's Montana cabin in April 1996, they found copies of the Earth First! Journal, as well as an Earth First! affiliated publication called Live Wild or Die. This broadsheet, funded by Mike Roselle, included a now-famous "Eco-F*cker Hit List."
At the top of the Hit List was the California Forestry Association. In the middle was a prominent cartoon about the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Kaczynski sent dozens of mail bombs; three were fatal. He killed an employee of the California Forestry Association, and a Burson-Marsteller PR executive named Thomas Mosser. Kaczynski (mistakenly) believed that Burson-Marsteller was responsible for rehabilitating Exxon's public image after the 1989 Valdez oil spill.
The source of that mistake? An essay in the Earth First! Journal, which the FBI says was one of Kaczynski's "favorite" periodicals. A letter found in Kaczynski's cabin -- led "Suggestion for Earth First!ers from FC" ["FC" was the Unabomber's pseudonym] -- read in part: "As for the Mosser bombing, our attention was called to Burston-Marsteller [sic] by an article that appeared in the Earth First! Litha." The reference to "Litha" is in keeping with the Journal's habit of naming its issues after (pagan) lunar-calendar months.
According to ABC News and other media outlets, the FBI also believes that Kaczynski attended an Earth First! gathering just one month before murdering Mosser.
Called it.
Gotcha.
Given:
1) Ted is a mass murderer.
2) Ted reads "Earth first".
3) Greenfyre founded a chapter.
Fallacy: Guilt By Association
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy
Description of Guilt By Association
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."
The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.
Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).
Person A would be, well just about anyone, but in this case it would be PopTart.1)It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2)Therefore P is false
People that A doesn't like would be Ted and Greenfyre
Claim P could either be "AGW" or "Andrew of PopTech is a sophistic sack of "
So let's put this together.
1] Ted accepts AGW.
2] Therefore AGW is false.
This is flawed reasoning. We cannot assume AGW is false because Ted thinks it is true.
or
1] Ted accepts newsletters from Greenfyres group. Greenfyre and Ted must agree on a lot of things, and Greenfyre thinks that Andrew of PopTech is a sophist sack of .
2] Therefore the fact that Andrew of Poptech is a sophsit sack of is false.
This is flawed reasoning. We cannot assume the fact that Andrew of Poptech is a sophist sack of is false, because Greenfyre thinks it is true.
Of course, I could be wrong here. I have to try and figure out why PT would try to link a mass murder to a guy who points out the weaknesses in PT's arguments.
I'm just guessing. Maybe PT would care to explain it to me to clear up anything I might have gotten wrong here.
But there is association, hence the ad. Marketing works that way, right? Are we suppose to disallow free speech marketing practices? Are you equally concerned when your side does the same thing?
Marketing?
I thought we were talking about science.
If any environmentalist group tried linking climate skeptics to mass murderers, I would most definitely say that was dumb, and shameful.
Why have you not called this dumb and shameful?
Do you believe AGW is wrong because Ted thinks it is right?
I'm not claiming right or wrong. I was only pointing out what I think it is. For the record, yes. i find it distasteful. Is it my duty to always point out something I see as distasteful?Marketing?
I thought we were talking about science.
If any environmentalist group tried linking climate skeptics to mass murderers, I would most definitely say that was dumb, and shameful.
Why have you not called this dumb and shameful?
Do you believe AGW is wrong because Ted thinks it is right?
Do you?
I say there is an association. Is this factual or not?But there is association, hence the ad.
See the question mark? Am I agreeing it should work that way, or am I making a point?Marketing works that way, right?
See the question mark? Are you suggesting we clamp down on the first amendment?Are we suppose to disallow free speech marketing practices?
See the question mark? You grill me for not immediately reacting negative to this, but I rarely see you do the same when it is effective slander against someone you dislike.Are you equally concerned when your side does the same thing?
When's the last time you stood against a lie or negative association that would effectively defend president Bush? What about any other politician you don't like? What about when there is clear misinformation about any subject we debate?
How often do you say it isn't right?
Please hold yourself to a standard before asking other to.
No its much more shady. this guy gets a crack at your personal information and starts digging. Any smear he find he blows up. In some cases I think he just straight up makes up .
His sourcewatch material he basically got a nice Soviet effigy and copied from some neo-con Borowitz and what is a 'lobbying' group for the beer and tobacco industries, Center for Consumer Freedom. At least thats what the source he is smearing has to say.
He took the greenfyre's real name and went to a research database which popped out that Earth First article. He went from there and posted every single bad thing that he could find about Earth First and uploaded something that looks to be from an old newsgroup on google docs.
DeSmogblog lists its Foundation's contributors. Well he took that information and found out one of their contributors company was investigated and found guilty for gambling so he puts all that up there.
He is very butthurt about his banning and the deletion of his posts on on skeptical science. He posted a goofy picture of the admin and whined of being taunted. Why would anyone not want.him around?
He 'revealed' that ClimateScience.org was associated with Al Gore.
I bet if he could find something on one of us, he would feel zero compunction of doing the same. In his own little way thats what he is doing with his mini-smear of the RG.
His forum is not so much for discussion as it is to store all of his 'arguments' and 'facts.' Hes argued the global warming from very angle possible angle for most of a decade. He has recently switched the les to include 'alarmism.' That is now his canned response to anyone who doesn't acknowledge how he has moved the goalposts.
You can read that and see how his sophistry evolves. Thats how his list got started: he was doing more rebuttal storage for the argument that there weren't many skeptics he started trolling academic databases and cherrypicking a list. But he does this with most everything, including you if your not careful. If you register on his site, you are a dumbass.
Its all the stereotypical neocon bull : climate, unions, alternative energy, how alcohol is good and drugs are bad, muslims are all trying to wipe us off the face of the earth, AIDS is all for drug addicts and s, pure capitalism or its tainted, and all that type of thing. He even goes into that same mode arguing over the security supremacy of Microsoft products or trying to protect their image over the threat that is Linux.
I have said that Darrin is a deceptive sophist bag but quite frankly I had no idea what a deceptive cowardly sophist bag was until I met this guy.
Whats missing is the racist though. So I just have to ask, monkey: if you were to have a daughter, would you let her marry a black man?
I have no doubt about any of this.
The guy is a high-functioning sociopath. I hesitated to tell him I was an accountant, and have little doubt he has combed through my profile here.
I am genuinely concerned.
(edit)
Make that "no doubt"
It is.
It is especially true when it might be by someone that is of a group you self-identify with.
Otherwise, you are condoning it by your silence.
This is why I do not hes ate for a second to admit when I think Democrats have done ty things.
[QUOTE=Wild Cobra;5850701]I say there is an association. Is this factual or not?
QUOTE]
Yes.
So, by the same token, is the association between Nazis and all right-wing politics. That is just as "factual".
Observing it is one thing. When you go out though and do something with it, as your post seemed to imply whether you meant it to or not, that is something else entirely, because you attempt to demonize a group, or an idea by the actions of some.
This is probably an alien concept to you. I don't expect you to fully understand it, no offense.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions