Page 141 of 161 FirstFirst ... 4191131137138139140141142143144145151 ... LastLast
Results 3,501 to 3,525 of 4001
  1. #3501
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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.
    Poptech is offline

  2. #3502
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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

  3. #3503
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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

  4. #3504
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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

  5. #3505
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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

  6. #3506
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    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

  7. #3507
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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

  8. #3508
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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

  9. #3509
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    The questions I asked were relevant and you have conceded those points.
    Lets explore this a bit.

    You will ask a question such as:

    Does the Skeptical Science link include most of the peer-reviewed papers on my list?
    Now while you may think your clever, what is obvious is that this is just a leading question into your canned answers that you created however long ago. You have them linked at your site and as you have claimed time and again with your arguments; they are irrefutable. We both know the distinction you want to make; you just want me to do it for you.

    Thats the thing though is that you have not presented the argument. I am very familiar with the technique you are attempting. I am familiar with the notion that if i play along then it seems that I am agreeing with your premise.

    Its similar to what happens in the legal system where people are prohibited from asking leading questions to a witness that they use to build their argument. Its the same here you don't get to pretend that I am your witness and ask me leading questions.

    If you want to make an argument then make it but me not participating in your dog and pony show is not an admission of a supposed point and that holds doubly true when you have yet to make that point.

    Its weaker than your asshurt thread where you make claims as to what things are but fail to give any basis for said claims. You aren't even making claims. You are asking me questions.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  10. #3510
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    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?
    If you are a Capitalist you cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. Supporting a mixed economy and claiming to be a Capitalist would be a case of cognitive dissonance. I understand that emotionally those who support a mixed economy want to believe they support Capitalism but this is illogical since they support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. They are in denial they are socialists. I have little respect for those who refuse to admit their beliefs.

    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?
    I simply chose this picture in this case to clearly visualize that Sourcewatch and the Center for Media & Democracy endorse anti-capitalist (socialist) positions. If you are attempting to demonstrate using a picture that something is socialist then yes you can use this picture.
    Poptech is offline

  11. #3511
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    If its cognitive dissonance then why does it go one way or another?

    i mean if they are mutually exclusive then why does one win out. Its obvious in a marketplace the two principles coexist. The state can own the water company yet the fish store owner can own his property as an individual and enjoy a free market.

    why is it that this is not possible in the brain?

    You're just being puritanical about your ideals, monkey.

    Oh and monkey, i think that its a nice touch that you compare all people that believe in an rust laws with communist Russia.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  12. #3512
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    If its cognitive dissonance then why does it go one way or another?

    i mean if they are mutually exclusive then why does one win out. Its obvious in a marketplace the two principles coexist. The state can own the water company yet the fish store owner can own his property as an individual and enjoy a free market.

    why is it that this is not possible in the brain?

    You're just being puritanical about your ideals, monkey.
    Because a Capitalist cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. This has nothing to do with acknowledging they exist they just do not support their existence.

    Oh and monkey, i think that its a nice touch that you compare all people that believe in an rust laws with communist Russia.
    I did no such thing. I equated those who believe in anti-trust laws with socialists.
    Poptech is offline

  13. #3513
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Now while you may think your clever, what is obvious is that this is just a leading question into your canned answers that you created however long ago. You have them linked at your site and as you have claimed time and again with your arguments; they are irrefutable.
    No, you are distorting what I stated earlier. Yes I have certain responses in my head because I have heard them many times before but I have typed all the responses here except for the links and quotes. They are not "canned" as in I have this master list where I cut and paste from.
    Poptech is offline

  14. #3514
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Because a Capitalist cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. This has nothing to do with acknowledging they exist they just do not support their existence.


    I did no such thing. I equated those who believe in anti-trust laws with socialists.
    Oh you claim they are mutually exclusive. I don't see why you cannot make the same argument about socialists not supporting any privately owned companies. Its puritanical nonsense.

    And you equated socialists with Soviet Russia. this is what i am talking about when it comes to the logical conclusions. Here is a logical construct

    anti-trust = socialist
    socialist = Soviet Russia
    ergo anti-trust = Soviet Russia

    What do equate mean?

    In America, you watch TV. In Soviet Russia, TV watch YOU!!
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  15. #3515
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    No, you are distorting what I stated earlier. Yes I have certain responses in my head because I have heard them many times before but I have typed all the responses here except for the links and quotes. They are not "canned" as in I have this master list where I cut and paste from.
    Sure just ignore the rest of the argument and fixate on the semantics of the word 'canned.' Your tactics are pretty cloy at this point, monkey.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  16. #3516
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    How to use RandomGuy's "Logic",

    RG was a Nazi.
    Poptech is offline

  17. #3517
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Sure just ignore the rest of the argument and fixate on the semantics of the word 'canned.'
    I actually agreed with most of what you said there, too bad it took you to be on the receiving end before you spoke out.
    Poptech is offline

  18. #3518
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Because a Capitalist cannot support the existence of publicly owned or nationalized industries. This has nothing to do with acknowledging they exist they just do not support their existence.
    Can you provide an example of a capitalist nation or society? I'd like to look into how this philosophy has fared under real-world economic conditions.
    Th'Pusher is offline

  19. #3519
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Oh you claim they are mutually exclusive. I don't see why you cannot make the same argument about socialists not supporting any privately owned companies. Its puritanical nonsense.
    Because socialists are not all or nothing. Socialism was intended to be a transition phase between capitalism and communism.

    And you equated socialists with Soviet Russia. this is what i am talking about when it comes to the logical conclusions. Here is a logical construct

    anti-trust = socialist
    socialist = Soviet Russia
    ergo anti-trust = Soviet Russia
    Again, I was using a very recognized socialist image to drive the anti-capitalist point home. No fear was intended but I do apologize if it frightened you.

    A relevant logical construct;

    anti-trust = socialist position
    socialist position = socialism
    ergo anti-trust = socialism
    Poptech is offline

  20. #3520
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431


    This is gold.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  21. #3521
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Can you provide an example of a capitalist nation or society? I'd like to look into how this philosophy has fared under real-world economic conditions.
    The closest example would be, Hong Kong 1950-1997 (Under British Rule).

    Milton Friedman Describes Hong Kong as an Example of the Free Market System (1980) (Video) (8min)
    The Hong Kong Experiment (Milton Freidman, Jul 30, 1998)

    Even today both Hong Kong and Singapore have the most free economies.
    Poptech is offline

  22. #3522
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Because socialists are not all or nothing. Socialism was intended to be a transition phase between capitalism and communism.


    Again, I was using a very recognized socialist image to drive the anti-capitalist point home. No fear was intended but I do apologize if it frightened you.

    A relevant logical construct;

    anti-trust = socialist position
    socialist position = socialism
    ergo anti-trust = socialism
    Socialisms intent is to TURN US INTO SOVIET RUSSIA!!

    In America, you update blog. In Soviet Russia, blog updates YOU!

    And yeah i was really frightened.

    this is boring, buh-bye.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  23. #3523
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    All I have been trying to do is point out how much of a puritanical extremist this guy is. I feel like I have done that. He still hasn't answered the last question you asked him btw. we tried, but he so far has dissembled. Have fun.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  24. #3524
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Socialisms intent is to TURN US INTO SOVIET RUSSIA!!
    That is one strawman argument you could make out of that.
    Poptech is offline

  25. #3525
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    The closest example would be, Hong Kong 1950-1997 (Under British Rule).

    Milton Friedman Describes Hong Kong as an Example of the Free Market System (1980) (Video) (8min)
    The Hong Kong Experiment (Milton Freidman, Jul 30, 1998)

    Even today both Hong Kong and Singapore have the most free economies.
    Haven't watched the video, but didn't the colonial government maintain control of land? seems important. So, they were socialist as well. USSR flag appropriate for them as well?
    Th'Pusher 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
  •