Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
No I'm fine. Debate it or not
I can't debate it without an argument to evaluate and an opponent to advance that argument. You are the one preventing the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How about you, do you have any sources that ascribes how much AGW contributes to the current warming?
No.
Arguments matter, arguments sometimes require raw data/observations. Sources only matter in debate when they serve as public records for raw data and observations.
Since I am familiar with attempts to understand and model the climate I can tell you that anyone who gives you a % of warming caused by humanity is almost certainly relying on fatally oversimplified logic.
The power transmitted by convection and conduction cannot be quantified (to any useful accuracy) by any simulation or measured by any existing network of sensors. Without that critical dynamic being accurately modeled there is no way to assess the impact of secondary factors in power flow (like scattered blackbody radiation) nor assess the effect of man made power release (such as the heat released from nuclear reactors and burning hydrocarbons).
In simple analogy: You can't predict the effect on temperature of lighting a candle in a room when you don't know exactly how insulated the room is and what the mechanisms of insulation are.
Created:
Posted in:
@IwantRooseveltagain in the above post you said nothing worthy of comment. If that is true of your next post addressing me I will not repeat this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You may now make a positive argument so that I may evaluate it and debunk if possible.Already did.This appears to be false. Please link to the post in question.#134
Post #134 is this:
AGW has caused significant increases in global temperature and will cause significant negative effects on the planet
This is pure assertion, not an argument. An argument must contain two or more premises and a conclusion. Since you have failed to advance a positive argument as you claimed, you may do so now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You may now make a positive argument so that I may evaluate it and debunk if possible.Already did.
This appears to be false. Please link to the post in question.
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] First, only idiots get their news and information on these sites, so no harm, no foul.
Says the guy who constantly spams threads consisting only of a link to questionable political propaganda and an unoriginal rehash of the more extreme implication thereof.
Nobody has a right to speak on Twitter or Facebook.
The government (specifically deep state actors) doesn't have the right to puppet private organizations to censor speech. Such an act constitutes sedition against the USA not to mention an unforgivable violation of the oath of service.
The government has a compelling need and responsibility to limit some speech we are told. Lies that hurt the public fall into this category.
The tree of liberty requires fertilizer from all persons who dare to say such things. I believe in the golden rule after all. Let the censors be themselves censored permanently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
(he kept lying and trying to cover up even as Elon Musk was trying to tear Twitter away from the grasp of the deep state)I don't understand. A twitter lawyer didn't release information? how does that have anything to do with the 1st amendment?
It shows just how egregiously he held to interests in contradiction to his supposed duties as an employee. Cementing for all rational observers that his true loyalty was with corrupt elements of the government (which has been come to be called "the deep state").
People don't pay for names. They pay for goods and services.this isn't true. People pay for names all the time.
Maybe when they can stick them on the side of a building in gold letters. I don't see "Biden" in gold around Burisma.
I don't understand. Your previous post showed a twitter lawyer covering up information. When are we getting to the government stopping people from speaking?
It was in the article. This lawyer is FBI.
The person in question did not see any crime. He said that someone else had seen a crime.
False
You see a criminal make wild accusations without anything to back them up.
Text records on phones he provided data him up. All the circumstantial evidence surrounding the Bidens backed him up.
And the fact that he is a criminal makes them more credible to you.
A criminal to nazis, fascists, and communists is a hero to liberals. It is sad that you so easily fall into the propaganda traps set for you instead of looking at the evidence and using logic to determine the truth.
I just told you one excellent reason: He got 10%.you told me there is a rumor he got 10%.
Digital evidence and testimony provided by a whistleblower. If you want to call that a rumor I can't stop you, but I will call out your hypocrisy if you call digital evidence and testimony in any other case anything more than rumor.
Burisma also had a former president of poland a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign on the board among others.
I didn't know that, but it would not surprise me if true. That supports my criminal theory.
There is 0 evidence that anything illegal happened.
There is zero evidence that Hitler knew about the holocaust if you call witness testimony "rumor" and apply the benefit of the doubt in Hitler's favor an infinite number of times. Since I am sane I know Hitler ordered the holocaust and Biden fired the prosecutor through a quid pro quo to protect Burisma.
There is no evidence any money went to joe biden.
Yes, except for the text messages, emails, witness testimony, and financial records that's correct.
There is no evidence joe biden did anything that could be construed as helping that company.
Yes, except for the text messages, emails, witness testimony, financial records, and Biden's own admission that's correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You may now start crying about nasa and tell us we should accept YOUR interpretation of the data instead of theirs. Lol
You may now make a positive argument so that I may evaluate it and debunk if possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not sure about his ACGCC claims.
AGW + "significant negative effects on the planet" = ACGW
Warming is a subset of change so ACGW is ACGCC just as ACG[Cooling] is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
AGW has caused significant increases in global temperature and will cause significant negative effects on the planet
That's not an argument, it's an assertion. Three assertions actually:
1.) The Earth is warming
2.) It is caused by man
3.) It will cause significant negative effects on the planet
It's also a bit funny that you implied self-causality. AGW = anthropogenic global warming. You said "anthropogenic global warming has caused significant increases in global temperature".
Global warming has caused increases in global temperature? Does commuting cause significant movement from home to work? Do waterfalls cause significant amounts of dihydrogen oxide to exist a lower gravitational potential?
Anyway I say "ACGCC" = Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Climate Change, that's the true claim that separates the two sides of this political controversy.
All you have said is "ACGCC is happening". I still say: Prove it. (or at least try to support it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You got nothing
The irony of saying that as an excuse to not make a positive argument is amusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
it was censored in violation of the 1st amendmentwhat? how? Was someone banned by the government from speaking?
Yes, Twitter and Facebook were infiltrated by deep state (CIA, FBI, etc...)
Most prominent example: https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/gop-hints-at-legal-action-against-ex-twitter-lawyer-baker/
(he kept lying and trying to cover up even as Elon Musk was trying to tear Twitter away from the grasp of the deep state)
that isn't evidence of a crime. hunter used his daddy's name to make money.
People don't pay for names. They pay for goods and services.
Many children of politicans do this. Trump's children for example made TONS of money abusing their relationship to trump and their access to the government.
and if any of those accusations and related evidence was censored by state actors that would also be a breach of the constitution which conveyed moral sanction for any actions needed to remedy.
And that "whistleblower" made a single statement with no evidence.
HistoryBuff, WITNESS TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE.
(Also he provided phones with text records)
And the "whistleblower" himself has been indicted with many corruption related charges.
You understand that to me and those like me that fact (if it is a fact) only makes him seem more credible right? We see the DOJ as an enemy institution. Whoever the SS drags away was probably the one telling the dangerous truth.
If he never delivered anything, why did he get 10%?there is no evidence this ever happened. Why would you think it did?
Why do I have to explain the sky is blue?
I just told you one excellent reason: He got 10%. People don't pay you for rendering no service. Not unless you're defrauding them.
Any sane jury would see a payment from a suspect to a hitman as incriminating evidence. Aspire to sanity HistoryBuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Looks like you're going to do the red herring thing. Counter strategy is to force to one point at a time.
Everyone who has ever worked for Donald Trump knows who "the boss" is. You are really grasping for straws on that one.
Who is the big guy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
True. Only 10-17% (depending on the poll) would have switched their votes. But would that have decided the election?polling someone years later and asking them if they would have switched their vote because of some bogus story doesn't mean very much.
The story was true, and it was censored in violation of the 1st amendment. It matters a great deal if the constitution was violated, it means the constitution is null until the effects of the violation are remedied.
The story had nothing to do with joe biden.Yes it did, Joe is "The big guy".What are you talking about now?
The laptop contained evidence incriminating Joe Biden. Referring to him as "the big guy" in foreign dealings where a whistleblower and Hunter's own text messages confirm that "the big guy" is Joe Biden and he gets 10%.
Show me what policy he changed because of what hunter was doing?
If he never delivered anything, why did he get 10%?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yes it did, Joe is "The big guy".The story had nothing to do with joe biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
fine, I should have said one possible cause.
I can't let that alone either, it's possible in the same way 5G is a possible cause of cancer and voter fraud: there is no publicly advanced and precisely defined mechanism that doesn't contradict proven science.
It's a purported cause.
Tis a silly ideaI wouldn't be surprised to see massive industrial greenhouses with huge DAC machines keeping CO2 ppm around 1500. Just to provide enough plant life to support more humans.
Alright but its hardly sequestration if you give the carbon to humans who poop (and breathe) it out into the general atmosphere again. That's just a plan for concentrated farming which only makes sense if we have shortage of surface area (which we really don't).
But I would say the same thing to you:Just because we can do something does not mean we should.
*looks up from resurrecting dinosaurs* whoops.
There are some extremely nasty consequences for a lot of current Earth life if we suddenly lowered temperatures. Much of the remaining life has adjusted for the higher temperatures. Playing with global temperatures by lowering it back down one degree could cause even more extinctions of the remaining Earth life. Lowering CO2 PPM would cause the browning of all the present Earth greening NASA observed. For what reason?
Oh yea I'm not saying we need to mess with anything, but we should put ourselves in the position of being able to since we don't know what will happen next.
Also between lowering the average temp by 1 degree C and cutting the carbon dioxide concentration in half the latter would be far more catastrophic.
If there's a way to cool the planet (for whatever reason you think it's important) surely doing it in a way that doesn't destroy green life should be considered.
Absolutely. I say we should be burning our trash at 6000C so we stop burying carbon (and other useful stuff) in these disgusting useless landfills.
It's not a problem now because we're digging up more carbon elsewhere but eventually that will stop and we need to stop burying carbon. We like plants, the animals like plants, in fact it's only zombies who don't like plants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry to butt in Greyparrot,
If Co2 doesnt cause global warming, what does?It is one cause.
It isn't by any mechanism we can predict from current (true) theory.
Solar Radiation Management (SRM): SRM involves reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface. One proposed method is to inject aerosols into the stratosphere, which would scatter sunlight and create a cooling effect. However, SRM techniques are controversial due to potential side effects and ethical concerns.
That will work, but it's a very inelegant method. Very thin mirror fabric stretched over deserts or even better launched into space accomplish the same thing without having to pick a particulate to cover the globe in (and that would have to be constantly replenished).
Cloud Brightening: This technique involves enhancing the reflectivity of marine clouds by spraying saltwater droplets into the air. The idea is to increase cloud droplet concentration, making clouds more reflective and thus reflecting more sunlight away from the Earth's surface.
Never heard of this, doesn't sound like it would be too much easier than the first plan. In fact clouds are probably the only thing that would work in the first plan.
Afforestation and Reforestation: Planting trees and restoring forests can help absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, thereby reducing the greenhouse gas concentration. Forests also have a cooling effect as they release moisture into the air through a process called transpiration, which can lead to local cooling.Ocean Fertilization: Adding nutrients to the ocean in specific areas can stimulate phytoplankton growth, which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. However, this method is debated due to potential ecological and environmental risks.
Trees plant themselves, algae grows itself. They don't throw carbon down a black hole they make it part of their bodies. They aren't an infinite sink if you don't have a way to collect their dead bodies and bury them. If you don't do that all you're doing is increasing the throughput of the carbon cycle. Bacteria will just throw it back into the atmosphere.
Also carbon dioxide isn't warming the planet and removing it will slightly warm the planet.
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): BECCS involves growing plants that absorb CO2, then burning the plants for energy while capturing and storing the CO2 emissions. This process effectively removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
This is the only carbon sequestration strategy that could be implemented on mass scale as it provides its own energy and has a product to sell.
But of all past human actions and all your suggestions this is the most likely to do genuine damage to the environment. Old growth forests are reserves of biodiversity.
We are already burying a significant portion of our trash.
So when you remove the obvious madness of burning town virgin forests for this plan you're left with basically collecting deadwood and brush from inhabited areas. Not too crazy if you had robots. If I had robots though I would release the carbon again to recycle it because carbon dioxide is not warming this planet.
Enhanced Weathering: Certain rocks naturally react with CO2 and weathering processes, which can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Enhancing these processes by grinding up rocks and spreading them over large areas could potentially help reduce CO2 levels.Carbon Mineralization: Certain types of rocks react with CO2 to form stable carbonate minerals. By exposing CO2 to these rocks, carbon mineralization can permanently sequester CO2 in solid form.
The chemical reactions involved could be done directly as well. However this is not nearly as scalable as using plants.
Direct Air Capture (DAC): DAC involves building large machines that capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can then be stored underground or used for various purposes.
Tis a silly idea
White Roofing and Pavements: Urban areas can be cooled by using reflective materials for roofing and pavement surfaces. This helps reduce the urban heat island effect, where cities are significantly warmer than their surrounding rural areas.
Small effect, and many countries near the equator have already all but adopted this plan as they don't enjoy oven-houses.
Reflective Land Cover: Modifying land cover, such as using reflective materials or covering desert areas with lighter-colored materials, can increase surface albedo and reflect more sunlight.
As I said above, a much better plan than particulates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is correct. They even have different names.So not all gasses are same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Of course you won't debate. No one does here. Lol
I'll debate, I just won't pretend to debate a website (lol). You want to maintain that carbon dioxide is warming this planet then you go learn from the NASA website and come to me when you think you understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Carbon dioxide is Earth's most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat.
All gasses (all atoms) absorb and emit thermal radiation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
That's because you would lose.
Guess I'll never know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Would you like me to show you them?
I don't care if you 'cheat' off NASA but write it here as your own arguments. I won't debate someone who won't take responsibility for the assertions and arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wonder why the OP used that term?
They don't want the ignorant masses to look at a snow storm and think "durgh that's not warm"
i.e. the theory wasn't sufficiently unfalsifiable.
If the Earth's ocean boil -> CO2 did that.
If the Earth becomes an ice cube -> CO2 did that.
If the gas prices go up -> CO2 did that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Nasa has some pretty strong arguments for AGW
Incredible that after nearly a decade no one has used one of them when I challenged them to support the assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Religion is more than just a widely believed claim. It has a pattern of providing spiritual nourishment, being a nexus of a value system, and while it may shallowly claim to be rational it responds to questions and criticisms by appealing to authority.Yep. Thank God I'm not part of the we actually landed on the moon religion. Lol
Believing in the moon landings is starkly different from believing carbon dioxide is warming the planet, when someone denies the moon landings people don't say "just ask NASA you nub", they make arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
There have been bigger conspiracies, they're called religions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Conspiracy theory in the pajoritive sense doesn't simply refer to a theory that there was a conspiracy. It refers to a theory based on a specific type of flawed thinking characterized by fallacies such as argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, backwards rationalizing, and an inverse of Occam's razor.
So it's a way to disguise saying "You're wrong stupid" in a way that isn't so obviously pointless.
Your suspicion of what Joe Biden might have done if he were in the same position Trump was is not an argument
It is irrelevant to me if you consider it an argument or not. He is not in the same position because the department of injustice has more in common with the stazi than Andy Griffith and Trump wasn't as ruthless/effective as the deep state.
The fact that you continue to trot this out speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument. You would never accept this line of thinking if our positions were reversed and I think you know that.
If you think you can demonstrate a contradiction in my stated positions don't hold back.
I forgot you need to prove intent with deep staters. Duh only independents like Trump are presumed malicious.With Clinton the emails were deleted by an aid. That's all we know. We can infer malicious reasons why it could have been done intentionally, but that's nothing more than suspicion which does not hold up in a courtroom.With Trump we know how intentions with regards to his security server because we have his employees on tape discussing it - "the boss wants the server deleted"Do you see the difference here?
I am in a state of pity for you if you see a difference.
People don't smash data devices with hammers and use bleach bit because their boss never once requested or indicated that data should be destroyed.
There is literally no recording of Hitler ordering the holocaust. Some inferences are so close to proven that they may be treated as certain. You quite hilariously pretend that you can't figure out that Hilary ordered the servers wiped but didn't bother to apply your standard of proof to Trump.
A.) Does that tape of employees actually exist? Was it deep faked? You don't know, you presume.
B.) If Hilary's employees can randomly decide to destroy data, why can't Trump employees randomly decide to destroy data? Why can't they randomly decide to say their boss wants it. What if their boss is someone slightly higher up the hierarchy but not Trump who just happened to want to destroy data without orders (because that happens often enough to be presumed apparently)
C.) How do you know which server was being referenced
You're doing nothing but painting a picture of just how blind you are to your own biases.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
In 2019, a special court found former Pakistani ruler General Pervez Musharraf guilty of high treason under article 6 of Pakistan’s constitution — for suspending the constitution when he imposed a state of emergency in November 2007 — and sentenced him to death. Article 6 holds that a person who “abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance” the country’s constitution has committed high treason. I hope the USA is as smart as Pakistan.
Wow that's radical.
I mean 'we' know a few examples:
1.) Roe v Wade was a subversion of the constitution
2.) The legitimizing of the 2020 election via friendly lawsuits to ignore voting law also violates the constitution provision that electors are appointed in accordance with state legislatures.
3.) Almost all legislation termed "gun control" is in fact in violation of the 2nd ammendment
But... can we really kill all those people? So many judges legislators. Probably thousands. Well if it's what it takes to be as smart as Pakistan.
I do have a question though, isn't killing the a presidential candidate subverting the constitution too? So then we would have to kill the court that killed Trump (jury included). Damn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
But you believe the analysis done by other scientists.
I would have believed in this one if doubts were not raised and then experiencing nearly a decade straight of nobody regardless of claimed education being able to maintain the argument against counter-arguments.
You have not examined all the data and let's not pretend you have.
I hardly need to pretend. Data isn't magic mana, it can be used in specific ways in specific arguments.
If I sat down and memorized 8000 points in a table on ice core data for a few years I might know it better than the people who took the data but that would not mean I was an infallible god (or science incarnate as Fauci achieved).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont even need to say that hydro plants are a disaster for nature, maybe bigger disaster than coal.
That's comparing two not very big disasters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
2. Lower energy output
What does that even mean? To be "lower" there must be something to compare it to.
Coal is coal, there is no other way to use it.
Nuclear energy wins in all areas against coal. So really, urging nations to abandon coal is not just because of global warming.
Nuclear energy is the future, but that is no reason to not use coal. It's a reason to improve nuclear technology. When nuclear is better overall you won't have to ban coal, people will stop using it out of rational self-interest.
It also doesn't help that uranium is kept away from many nations so those nations see only energy slavery in using it.
Denying global warming wont save coal
rejecting coal won't change global warming
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The best argument from who?
Doesn't matter, as I was just explaining to TWS in the other thread.
You do your own climate science?
I do my own scientific reasoning and anyone who can't or won't has no business pretending to debate it.
I don't collect huge data sets, but disagreements rarely come down to datasets as repeatability is a hard expectation to dodge for even the most unscrupulous 'scientist'.
That's appeal to authority
No, it's pointing out that even within the ultimately useless framework of credibility the claims of consensus are false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are plenty of reasons to replace coal. Global warming is just one of many reasons.
It is the only global reason. Without that claim coal burning (and all subsequent particulates) become a local and temporary decision which is useless for gaining political power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you saying it's no laughing matter to so blatantly abuse the term "genocide"?
Like for example it would be inappropriate to laugh at someone claiming "trans genocide" because it's far too grave an offense to use the same term for the holocaust as you do for failing to provide specialized bathrooms?
Created:
Which court addressed this evidence?Multiple courts, including courts held by judges appointed by Trump. It can easily be googled.
Then you should easily be able to find an example.
Or the civil war is so close lawyers aren't even allowed to make arguments anymore.so now the bar associations are also part of the “Deep State”. Of course.
Glad to see you're realizing the scope of the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Especially the politicians that censor science because they care about you.I suppose the only person we can really trust is Jimmy Dore.
... or Freeman Dyson or John Clauser (people who said what Greyparrot said long before Greyparrot said them)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Who should we appeal to for climate science?
Not who. What.
The best argument.
Not just for climate science, not just for science, for all questions.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Anyone worth their salt in debate/discussion knows full well that… “Credibility is essential to establish in a debate, otherwise the other side(s) will have no reason to consider your points.” Additionally… “If you have pertinent experience with the topic of debate, making that experience and the associated knowledge known will help establish you as an authority on that topic, which in turn will grant you credibility. ”So yeah, it does matter.
Not to anyone who understands rational epistemology engaging in debate. No number of links will change that.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Well then give a definition that includes the mass cult of personality you reference.Trump openly committed treason (call it sedition if you like), and he's still a popular enough politician to have a good chance at being reelected. Therefore I am not being deceptive by referring to a few odd-ball crazies in the mix but rather a mass cult of personality.
I have the advantage of not being a political ideologue, which makes me able to say fuck Trump and fuck Biden.
The ability to dislike both sides of a fight doesn't prove you're rational.
Politicians should not be placed on some pedestal as if they are the messiah.
It is not proven that the only possible reason to support Trump is the belief in his messiahship.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I always wonder if the average american is really conscious about the drawbacks of living in the suburbs.
I am not sure if they have a comprehensive integrated view but they do think about commutes, or did before every possible job became remote.
I hate suburbs because in my view it is a shallow and contrived imitation of liberty. The properties are too small for privacy, farming, keeping animals. It's just grass you are often required by (absurd) law to constantly mow.
Sometimes these cheap stick frame houses are only 20' apart. What is the point of the essential alleys between single family units? If you can't have the benefits of land, you should look for the advantages of communal living. Multifamily structures are more efficient to air condition and by their nature allow for tighter packing and thus more people closer to city centers with all their amenities.
Now American cities are currently shitholes (thanks to being run by the most corrupt of the already delusional democrat party), so the above arguments understandably don't sway that many people... but the cities could be very nice with large interesting parks and good public transit.
As far as I know, the health problems in the US, like the obesity, is because of that.
Well there is no doubt that we would be healthier if we walked more and it's true that a better city layout would make that feasible; but we also eat too much regardless.
I'm not mentioning other social problems that seemingly you are unable to see, like the lack of social cohesion and the mental problems it can entail, especially for the kids.
Not sure what that's in regard to. Until recently one of the few benefits of suburbs was that it created neighborhood communities where kids were allowed to roam around and play with friends where parents would never let kids out on the street in the city.
Of course in a full view of history we can see an increasing paranoia and/or increasing real danger to children that is creeping out from the cities. i.e. they used to let kids roam around in the cities too.
So I think you americans should assess the tradeoff between the suburbs and the inner city instead of any other secondary stuff like cars.
Well it could be argued that personal cars made the suburbs. Before that middle class people could not commute by carriage, so it was either city, town, or homestead. Those were your options.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
It’s an observation. One is either educated in subject matter A, or they are not educated in subject matter A.
and it doesn't matter in a debate either way.
Truth by definition cannot be a fallacy.
A purported but false implication of truth can be.
that translates to them having zero credibility to discuss subject A
If you're talking about credibility you're already off the reservation as far as debate goes. Appeal to authority when trying to use credibility. Poisoning the well when trying to deny authority (often when it is not even invoked).
Regardless, pointing out they they lack the education does advance the argument in discounting their ignorant nonsense
Discountenance for that reason is known fallacy.
You two need to stop with the militantancy on the CoC. It’s overreaching and patently absurd. M.T.F.U.
Then it was over reach and patently absurd when Greyparrot was forbidden from responding to insults in kind. Inequitable application of rules or interpretations of rules is intolerable.
A debate site is by definition a place where cultural opposition to fallacies is of the greatest utility and no fallacy is easier to identify than ad hominems, so I'll accept no rule and I'll except a uniform ban of ad hominems but I won't accept double standards.
If nothing else there will be a nice long list of all the times this 'interpretation' failed to be enforced if it is called upon again to silence someone.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't have to say anything in this thread because greyparrot said it all.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
"[Insert Name] isn’t educated enough to understand that salient fact of economics."
Either advances no argument or it is a fallacy.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Vegetarianism was first adopted by monks taking vows of poverty in ancient India. It is not a luxury fad for everyone.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Then why are his poll numbers improving?
Created:
[IwantRooseveltagain] This nonsense was debunked by Attorney General Barr
Unlikely.
None of what you listed is evidence
Strangely I don't dismiss evidence because someone defines it as "not evidence".
That’s why it was soundly rejected by US courts after Trumps crackpot lawyers filed lawsuits.
Are courts infallible? Which court addressed this evidence?
The lawsuits were so absurd these lawyers have had their law licenses suspended
Or the civil war is so close lawyers aren't even allowed to make arguments anymore.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Cars are more dangerous to third parties you are right.No. Its the cars that make motorcycles dangerous. You get hit by a car. Car runs over someone. Cars even pose a threat to bicycles. Maybe you are not interested in saving lives. Motorcycles can be dangerous if driven at high speed. However, they are not dangerous at low speeds. Car has greater mass, longer breaking time and stronger impact. Car is much more likely to kill pedestrian, kill bicycle, kill anything really
Everyone should switch to bicycles.
No, cycling (and light electric vehicles like electric scooters) should be encouraged and considered core infrastructure.
We all know that self driving cars wont work and wont happen.
I may think they're going about it like cavemen but it is both possible and inevitable.
Sure, I have dreams too of many great fairy tales. They wont become reality.
I refuse on principle to temper my optimism/dreaming with anything but strong argument.
Created:
-->
@Barney
tl;dr:Trump loyalists would cartoonishly defend any crime he could commit
If anyone didn't defend any crime you would probably say "well that one isn't a loyalist".
If "Trump loyalist" = "will defend any crime" then you stated a useless tautology that borders on deceptive language.
If that's now how you would define "Trump Loyalist" they say it openly that your assertion may be rendered falsifiable.
Created: