281–287 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please stop trying to move the goalposts, and go back and 1) define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and 2) list more names of scientists who are "not allowed to speak".
Please prove the goalposts have been moved...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak" Of course I meant she is not allowed to speak, quite literally. What else could it possibly mean after all, right? So, in the spirit of this discussion, I will have to concede that what I was trying to articulate is absolutely 100% incorrect as it is based on a false premise, that she is literally not allowed to speak. Indeed, she is on camera numerous t…
So why did you even come here and purposefully spread misinformation you knew wasn't true? What was your point? What was your goal? What you did was a systematic, pathological attempt to deceive, spread false conspiracy theories, discredit professional scientists, and deny global warming. Trying that hard so many times to articulate something you know is 100% incorrect is called "lying". You started out by defending…
It's this style of argumentation that makes your position seem less convincing.
If it were simply about facts and data, you would be able to rely on facts and data to demonstrate your point and convince your opponent and other readers.
Instead, you've used aggression and ridicule, and relied on multiple argumentative fallacies (most notably, appeal to authority and consensus fallacy) in your quest to win the argument.
The causes of good science and effective solutions for climate change - both of which I care a lot about - are harmed, not helped, by this style of debate.
I recently heard of the term "Steel man" argument, which is the opposite of "Straw man".
With a "Steel man" argument, you demonstrate your sincere commitment to finding truth by taking a charitable view of your opponent's position and arguing against the most formidable version of it.
If you were to try that on this topic, perhaps you might start by going through the list of scientists named on this Wikipedia page [1], and understanding the basis and the details of each of their reasons for skepticism (it varies a lot between them).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please prove the goalposts have been moved...
Please contribute something useful to the conversation.
> You failed to prove she was "not allowed to speak"
Do you have nothing to prove, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Give us the names of scientists who have been silenced "hear, hear, tell us what it sounded like, this tree that fell in the woods while no one was around!"
So the one person you named wasn't silenced, you don't know any more names, and don't have any other evidence to support your claim, so therefore your conspiracy theory is that it's impossible to even know them, but they exist anyway. You've just proven my point. The late Stephen Schneider also made the same point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider "So they make this assertion that they’re being systema…
> you and misterman are parroting
I didn't parrot anything, try reading my posts.
> "We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately."
And what has Judith said about Steve?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see what you're saying, but since I really strongly think my being skeptical guards me from missing falsehoods regardless, I'm not going to take this.
No it doesn't. Smart people are among the easiest to fool. You simply appeal to their intellect and flatter them.
It isn't about identifying bullshit so much as coming up with a subjective preference set to carry out and seek out that leads to a better world regardless of the circumstances.
"a better word" is theory-laden, and can't be separated form personal, selfish biases, and "circumstances".