List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies

[Wild Cobra]

Technology is bringing down the costs of batteries and all the things that go into making things like EV's at the same time costs for oil/gasoline go up.

Well, let me know when a sufficiently powered EV retains more than 90% of their battery capacity over their life. Have you seen what the cost is to change the batteries?

There are two trends at work, and they will meet in the middle at some point.

Probably. I say let the marketplace work naturally here.

The cost of oil will double in the next ten years or so.

Absolutely, but everything may double over 10 years. What about vs. a proper inflation index?

Within 5 years a host of new technologies will bring down the costs of EV's from a pure cost standpoint, not to mention learning curve and efficiencies of scale gains.

If you are so certain, why do you advocate market controls?

I may not be able to tell you within a year or so when that crossover will happen, but it appears to be within that 10 years.

It might be. I still seem to recall you wishing to hurry up the natural process.

When that happens renewables will be provably cheaper. It will be a bit funny to watch the Free Market Brigade backpedal about "drill here, drill now" when the synergies of renewables start kicking in and jobs move that way.

Maybe they know something you don't.

[CuckingFunt]

Consider basketball. A perfect shot, we would call a 'swoosh."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoosh

[johnsmith]

It makes me laugh that the political forum has become an argument about arguing.

[Poptech]

The answer is "no".

Keep in mind you are dealing with someone deeply insecure, to the point of what trained psychologists would call mild insanity.

I have no such insecurity but I see your demonization of me continues.

This deep insecurity means that he cannot admit any of the following:

1. Someone has found a weak point in his reasoning.
2. He has made a mistake.
3. Someone he disagrees with can make good point.

1. You have not found a weak point in my reasoning.
2. I admit to actual mistakes not ones you imagine.
3. You have not made a good point.

No matter what pile of valid evidence or reasoning may be presented to him, he will persist in his beliefs. Further, being unable to admit he has made a mistake, or has any weakpoints in his arguments means that he is incapable of a basic function of critical thinking: determining one's own biases.

You have not presented valid evidence. You are confusing your subjective arguments with valid evidence. When I make an actual mistake I will admit it and have many times.

His narcissism drives him to believe that he is smarter than you or I, and more logical, to the point of infallibility. You can't hold the ideas "I am smarter than these people, more logical, and don't make mistakes", while admitting that people who, to him, are less intelligent, illogical, and obviously have made the mistake of accepting AGW as a reasonable theory, have actually found a mistake of his, or have come to their conclusions logically using sound reasoning. To reduce the cognitive bias inherent in these two conflicting ideas, he takes the route of "it is a persecution of me and my ideas" route. It's a conspiracy against him and his ideas.

I am not narcissistic as I fail all such tests to label me as such. I also have no illusions about my intelligence. People that call AGW Skeptics "Deniers" or attempt to compare them to 911 Truthers are not reasonable. Your continued attempts to demonize me is all anyone needs to see to make up their own minds about your intentions and lack of integrity. I hold no such view that I am being persecuted or of any such conspiracy.

Anyone who doesn't see the exact same way, is obviously deluded. There is no room for honest conversation, because there is no "honorable dissent" in this worldview.

Calling me a denier, 911 Truther, sociopath or a narcissist is not having an honest conversation nor do I consider it honorable.

This is exactly the kind of person who buys into 9-11 conspiracy theories, fake moon landing theories, etc.

If one would care to swim through the sewers of 9-11 threads on just about any message board, you will see people fit into this pattern as well.

See here we go. I do not believe in either of these,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories

You have to continue to desperately try and associate me with them because it will cause you cognitive dissonance if you accepted otherwise.

The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible its skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem" or, alternately one of his fanboys will say "RG is not a psychologist, so he is wrong about all of this".

As PopTech himself has stated "it is possible for someone without a PhD in a subject to be knowledgeable in a subject."

I have spent more hours arguing with conspiracy nutters of one stripe or another than I would care to admit to. I know 'em when I see 'em.

All you can do is ad hominem because you cannot debate me on the facts, recognizing your ad hominem before hand does not make it any less of an illogical argument.

So far you have only demonstrated how little you actually know.

[Poptech]

It makes me laugh that the political forum has become an argument about arguing.

You can thank RG and his friends.

[ChumpDumper]

Calling me a denier, 911 Truther, sociopath or a narcissist is not having an honest conversation nor do I consider it honorable.

You're a drug addict.

[Blake]

No...

Consider basketball. A perfect shot, we would call a 'swoosh." Doesn't touch the rim. each prediction simply needs to make the basket. Yes, it's still a very tight margin, but doesn't require perfection.

smh

rofl

[FuzzyLumpkins]

/thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=203

He has no delusions grandeur but he thinks he has asbergers like he thinks a billionaire hedge fund manager has.

This dude is a certifiable nutjob.

[RandomGuy]

It makes me laugh that the political forum has become an argument about arguing.

No it isn't.

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoosh

Did you see the post that was 21 posts earlier than yours?

Now I don't know if the presence of NIKE in Beaverton, OR has anything to do with it, but they have a "swoosh" symbol, also created here Oregon, by a Portland college student. Maybe "swoosh" was only used here in Oregon in the 70's when I was in school.

Are you trying to tell me something I already knew growing up in Oregon history?

[CuckingFunt]

Did you see the post that was 21 posts earlier than yours?

At the time that I was responding to a post that was 18 posts ahead of that one? No. I hadn't.

Are you trying to tell me something I already knew growing up in Oregon history?

No. I was being a smart ass. I thought that was fairly obvious.

[RandomGuy]

I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem"

All you can do is ad hominem because you cannot debate me on the facts,

(sighs heavily)




Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


1) Person A makes claim X.
2) Person B makes an attack on person A.
3) Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

-----------------------------------------

PopTech = Person A
RandomGuy = Person B
An attack = PopTech is mildly insane, or, alternately, PopTech's modus operendi about the catastrophic effects of AGW has direct parallels to the clearly insane people who believe in vast evil conspiracies about 9-11 and faked moon landings.
Claim X = Human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.

1) PopTech make the claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.

2) Randomguy says that PopTech is mildly insane.

3) Randomguy says that since PopTech is mildly insane, his claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous is false.

The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible [this theory's] skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

You can't show the last step of that chain, since that is directly contradicted by what I actually said.

Once again, a provable strawman on your part. That is two, and I have not bothered with the rest, nor am I currently inclined to.

Once again, I am sorry to hurt your feelings with my statements about your sanity. I understand you are deeply insecure and my statements and rather merciless shredding of your arguments and claims does not help.

The larger issue at hand, however, is much more important than any one person's hurt feelings. It would be a disservice to ignore the weaknesses in your arguments and claims to spare your feelings about how smart you are.

It is what it is, and I mean nothing hostile in all of this. To sure, I could use slightly less loaded language than "nutter". Sorry.

I hope someday you get better.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whatevs, objection to ad hominem is is ad hominem, RG.

Aspberger delusion boy is never going to deviate from his obsessive, puritanical fundamentalism.

[RandomGuy]

Whatevs, objection to ad hominem is is ad hominem, RG.

Aspberger delusion boy is never going to deviate from his obsessive, puritanical fundamentalism.

No, he won't.

The more one delves into the rabbit hole of this guy's online activities, the more creepy it gets.

I have little doubt that if he is ignored, he will go away.

Maybe he will infest the NJ Net's equivalent of Spurstalk.

[Poptech]

Ah look RG has took to spamming his lies online. I must have really embarrassed him with this thread.

[Blake]

You're really obsessed with RandomGuy.

[Wild Cobra]

RG, I took a breif scan of that site. If that's you, I have a hard time believing you are participating in such a place. Those compilation of responses I read, and links, are far worse than all the twoofers here post.

[TeyshaBlue]

You're really obsessed with RandomGuy.

lol stalking...it's not just for WC anymore.

[Blake]

lol stalking...it's not just for WC anymore.

©

[RandomGuy]

RG, I took a breif scan of that site. If that's you, I have a hard time believing you are participating in such a place. Those compilation of responses I read, and links, are far worse than all the twoofers here post.

Honestly, I have spent more time browsing links that you/Darrin/Yoni etc. have given me to your favored websites than I have ever really spent in any blog or website like Greenfyre's.

I would point out that PoopDeck himself provided a link to it, so it's not like I had to go out and do anything other than read through PT's cultish, rambling website to find it.

This whole thing inspired me to a bit to poke into a few more websites skeptical of the AGW denier movement, and I have come away with a much stronger opinion about what the science says, and the fact that the people who are most skeptical of it, are the least credible.

The quality and types of arguments made by deniers has direct parallels to that of 9-11 truthers. There is no doubt in my mind about that at all.

[RandomGuy]

Ah look RG has took to spamming his lies online. I must have really embarrassed him with this thread.

WOW.

That was fast. I posted that this afternoon.

Interesting.

On another note, do not expect me to respond to anything else you post. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to see if you had anything interesting or compelling to say about Libertarianism, and I saw that was about as vacuous as the rest of your propaganda.

I have other things to do than to talk with sociopath cultists, and I genuinely think you would do me some kind of harm, were you in the position to do so. I will not give you that opportunity.

Goodbye to you, and I will not be clicking on any more "see posts".

[Poptech]

lol stalking...it's not just for WC anymore.

You didn't see my comments there first? He followed me there, therefore I cannot be stalking him and his comments mirrors his smears here.

It is irrefutable evidence of his desperation to demonize me because he cannot debate the facts.

[Poptech]

The quality and types of arguments made by deniers has direct parallels to that of 9-11 truthers. There is no doubt in my mind about that at all.

Then please explain this,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[Poptech]

I have other things to do than to talk with sociopath cultists, and I genuinely think you would do me some kind of harm, were you in the position to do so. I will not give you that opportunity.

This post demonstrates your absolute insanity.

Goodbye to you, and I will not be clicking on any more "see posts".

You said this already but cannot help to post more libelous lies.

[ChumpDumper]

Then please explain this,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Poptech got pissed and posted a link to a page with 25 YouTubes and hundreds of links because he is a drug addict.