Magox Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Whatever. It's wordplay and doesn't really change the fact that there is no good evidence of a larger conspiracy. I should be more selective with my phrasing when arguing minutia with such a towering intellect. If you are going to throw words around loosely to prove your point, then I'm going to call you out on them. You were touting that you weren't coming from a "subjective" point of view, where you clearly were. You were and to a certain extent still are adamant that "there is no good evidence of a larger conspiracy" where one could argue that there is. The FACT is that this cover-up comes from one of the leading climate centers. If they found data that doesn't support their argument then it would only be logical to believe that there are others that could have done the same. It's not as if that this was some rogue climatologist that didn't have clout, if that were the case, then I could see the reason for people to generally dismiss it.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 If you are going to throw words around loosely to prove your point, then I'm going to call you out on them. You were touting that you weren't coming from a "subjective" point of view, where you clearly were. You were and to a certain extent still are adamant that "there is no good evidence of a larger conspiracy" where one could argue that there is. The FACT is that this cover-up comes from one of the leading climate centers. If they found data that doesn't support their argument then it would only be logical to believe that there are others that could have done the same. It's not as if that this was some rogue climatologist that didn't have clout, if that were the case, then I could see the reason for people to generally dismiss it. This is a dead-end conversation. You're right about my original phrasing. I'll stand by the intent. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 However you said "None of the 'hacked' data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy." The three key words that you used that are incorrect are None, remotely and points. Except that none of the 'hacked' data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy. Other than that, you're right.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Except that none of the 'hacked' data even remotely points to a larger conspiracy. Other than that, you're right. This board is so gay sometimes. It's all about winning the argument and missing the point.
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 This board is so gay sometimes. It's all about winning the argument and missing the point. Winning the argument is the point. Isn't it?
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Winning the argument is the point. Isn't it? I think that finding the truth should be the point, but yes.
Magox Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 This board is so gay sometimes. It's all about winning the argument and missing the point. I believe that I can put a rubberstamp to this comment
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I believe that I can put a rubberstamp to this comment When your worldview is threatened you can always laugh.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Still waiting for an explanation of how I am wrong!!!!! Where'd you go jackass? Still waiting for the evidence!!!!!
/dev/null Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Winning the argument is the point. Isn't it? Cue Herm Edwards...
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I think that finding the truth should be the point, but yes. When I win an argument, it's because I speak the truth. QED. D
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 When I win an argument, it's because I speak the truth. QED. D It's certainly possible to out-argue someone by employing bull **** techniques while being logically or even factually incorrect.
Magox Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Doesn't matter what the worldview is, I can always laugh.
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 It's certainly possible to out-argue someone by employing bull **** techniques while being logically or even factually incorrect. For example: you might win this argument with that logically or factually incorrect statement. I, on the other hand, might win this argument by employing the bull **** technique of calling your statement logically and factually incorrect. I believe with this we have now achieved what is referred to as a "Mexican Standoff".
Gary M Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Where'd you go jackass? Still waiting for the evidence!!!!! Ah, Name calling, the final installment of a liberal argument. I went to scrap the ice of my windshield.
Magox Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I believe with this we have now achieved what is referred to as a "Mexican Standoff". Or you could describe it as
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 For example: you might win this argument with that logically or factually incorrect statement. I, on the other hand, might win this argument by employing the bull **** technique of calling your statement logically and factually incorrect. I believe with this we have now achieved what is referred to as a "Mexican Standoff". And we're nothing but a couple of bull-headed retards.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Ah, Name calling, the final installment of a liberal argument. I went to scrap the ice of my windshield. Wait, that's not evidence. Still waiting!!!!!
Gary M Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 And we're nothing but a couple of bull-headed retards. Opps, there it is again. Wait, that's not evidence. Still waiting!!!!! See post #12.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 See post #12. Yup, you're still wrong. But then again you don't care so there it is. Sound bites are fun.
Recommended Posts