Then what was your point?
Consensus fallacy is argumentum ad populum.
Speaking of precioussss lissssst
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...20&postcount=2
Yay! I win!
Then what was your point?
Consensus fallacy is argumentum ad populum.
My point was to ask about the entire body of evidence, of which his list is a subset.
I pointed out that his claim about that is a strawman.
He hasn't hesitated to call me out on anything he thinks is wrong or logicall flawed or unfair.
Why do you think he is ignoring my post/claim, Darrin?
Put the words down before you cut yourself, because you don't know how to use them.
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
punk ass and not backing it up.
I will say again:
you.
you are a selfish, short-sighted ,
This is the same guy that gave me a hard time and threaten not to post in a topic anymore cuz i called him RandomLie?
lol ing about personal insults then starting a butthurt thread about it...
Its great how how guys found a new Latin term to toss around and use but its such a shallow use that its ridiculous. When someone points out the vast majority of papers point to a certain position they are not basing the authority of that statement on the numbers alone. They are basing them on the numbers of experts with the best ability to judge the field. There is definitely a logic behind believing what is pretty much a statistical certainty in this situation.
But sure, keep going with your ad populum stuff instead of asking exactly WHY the sheer number of papers is what it is.
Butthurt thread delivers
On a slightly more serious note;
I was cranky. It didn't really bother me that much, and I overreacted.
Please accept my apologies for that one.
I'm sure it was my beard getting the better of me. I have shaved it off now, so I feel a lot better. :p
Summer beards suck.
Eh, I refuse to shave it off!
You really should though
![]()
Can't play the role of a dirty liberal academic without the beard. Sorry, it stays.
1. There is no "sheer" number of papers supporting ACC/AGW Alarm.
2. The "number" is an argumentum ad populum.
That's not a bearded woman its a man in a dress.
The number is only ad populum if you stop at the number. Shallow analysis is your forte.
Poptech,
don't know you and I'm not sure if you're aware of this yet but RandomGuy is the board authority on logically arguing most issues IMHO.
No...
He just thinks he is because he uses big words. He takes an educational elitism approach, rather than talking a common language. I love the fact that PopTech beats him at his own game.
You don't get to do that.
It is not an argumentum ad populum, simply because you say it is.
Prove it. We all know you can't.
My opinion is wrong? Ok bro
cobra can't get him enough of that pop!
LOL...
We all have our opinions. Fine with me if that's your opinion. I just disagree.
-and-
Sorry... You did write it as your opinion, and I didn't do the same. My last post is my opinion as well.
Maybe you will pick up the gauntlet that darrin so rightly left on the ground.
PopTech has not hesitated to claim I have made all manner of logical fallacies, and lies.
I directly accuse him of a logical fallacy and in, essence, lying here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=32
He has not added it to his list, nor responded to it.
(whips out the big boy fonts)
What does that tell you about the point I made?
Well, it doesn't count as cherry picking because this is a comprehensive list of YOUR logical fallacies and not his.
As Afro noted:
In my experience, those who scream about other people lying about them the most, tend to be the quickest to turn around and do the same thing. Pyschological projection of ones at udes on others.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)