This Might Be Controversial: Climate Scientist Gives Take On Future

[Im_CIA]

11 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

We hope...

Anything that doesn't pay out in cold hard cash is not worth an emotional investment, unless it's just for laughs.

[StrixLiterata]

On 6/14/2021 at 1:04 AM, The Britain said:

Bingo, it's completely possible to not go ad-hoc on someone arguing in a childish manner. This goes for everyone. Simply ignore them (trolls in general). "Don't wrestle with pigs in the mud unless you get covered in filth yourself." or however that quote goes.

 

See above. Everyone will get warnings and bans for it, it's not justified because someone else is doing it. There is no clause of self-defense in an online forum. No one's life is at-risk. The rules apply to everyone.

understood

[StrixLiterata]

On 6/14/2021 at 6:01 AM, BTGBullseye said:

We hope...

The likelyhood of being killed by an internet troll is low, but never zero...

[FullBusinessSuit]

On 6/10/2021 at 8:24 AM, StrixLiterata said:

thanks for admitting you're misinformed

wow. you're so intelligent. your cohort already admits on a regular basis that they're uninformed by not having shown surface level knowledge of easily researched topics. I'm not searching for your topic because it doesn't matter.

 

It's like when these idiots in my area starting googling the "new rules" for the plandemic, and they started to believe that extrajudicial laws can be created out of thin air and are equal to laws that have gone through the proper judiciary process - no. just because you search for something on the internet and the first search result is a government website telling you to do something or you'll get a fine or go to jail does not mean it's a law or legal. It's a blog post. nothing more, nothing less. and likewise for pseudoscience and wikipedia articles. wikipedia is a completely invalid source for anything that is a "hot topic" in american politics.

 

just because something is on the internet on a "popular" or "official" website does not mean that you should seek it out, believe it, listen to it, read it, or do anything whatsoever with it.

 

I already know you're going to respond with "my argument is now the same as yours. i win now." nah, you have to demonstrate understanding of what I said here rather than give a "no u" response and walk away with the smug attitude you have shown here.

[FullBusinessSuit]

On 6/10/2021 at 8:28 AM, StrixLiterata said:

The people who trhow the biggest tantrums abot climate change are conservatives, because they have the most incentive to care: not having to spend money on recycling, clean energy, etc.
It is you who is dodging the answer because you don't like it

This sounds like psychological projection. NONE of these thoughts even occurred to me. "incentive to care" what is this? You using my words to answer my inquiry to make it seem like your response is valid? no no, you haven't said anything related to what I was thinking, and so your post counts as a tally towards another bag of trash getting thrown in the park.

 

On 6/10/2021 at 8:28 AM, StrixLiterata said:

Way to show your pettyness.

pettiness*

 

On 6/10/2021 at 8:28 AM, StrixLiterata said:

I can see how your religion makes you moral and wise.

 

more psychological projection, i.e. YOU think your religion, that is atheism, makes you moral and wise.

 

I guess I have some background here (which indirectly and somewhat answers my inquiry), though through no conscious effort of your own. You atheists think you're inherently moral and wise and therefore because you think it, everyone else must believe that too.

 

Try to understand that you making a completely unfounded assertion as to my thoughts outs you in a way that completely exposed aspects of your thinking process that are difficult for anyone to even imagine that you're thinking. No wonder you people are at odds with the world; your thoughts are so bizzare, and you believe them with such self-righteous convictions (not to mention that strange unstated assumption that because you thought a thought that it's instantly transferred into every other person's consciousness).

 

I'm still waiting for an answer as to why childless athiests reeeee the hardest about climate when they have the least incentive to care.

 

If you can't understand or lack the mental capacity to address the whole topic, then break it down by attacking a piece of it, rather than your ad hominem attack on me (I know your path of least resistance thinking here is going to reeeee about me saying non-positive things about you and merely trying to feed back my argument to me, as opposed to thinking out an actual argument, so I'll just end this before it stats by saying that ad hominem attacks can be valid arguments to invalidate one's presented argument, but your ad hominem attack is not valid, and my "ad hominem" attack is not so much as a refutation of your ostensibly existential assertions (though they do not apply to me), let alone an ad hominem attack (granted you probably don't feel good about being shown you've mentally faux pas'd based on your smug unstated assumption that you value wisdom and intelligence as well as your implication that you possess said attributes)).

 

Why is it always childless atheists that reeeee the hardest about climate change when they have the least incentive to care?

Edited June 19, 2021 by FullBusinessSuit (see edit history)

[FullBusinessSuit]

On 6/11/2021 at 5:53 PM, Shaddy said:

When he says "I am not going to read anything you put in front of me", how are you supposed to attack that? So long as we're taking the values-neutral approach, this is just going to happen over and over until someone gives up the war of attrition, and it's not fun for anybody.

 

You're supposed to address why one should or shouldn't read what you're putting in front of them.

 

I'm reminded of these fake laws passed extrajudicially when the plandemic started (do not repond by talking about the plandemic - i do not care and it's off topic). Everyone I knew was searching online for "what the law was related to the plandemic", and they were directed to the state website that arbitrarily instituted something that was phrased like a law, and only meant to deceive the public, including law enforcement, into thinking that somehow a law has been passed in mere WEEKS/DAYS, and if you did not do as commanded on the website you'd be fined and arrested. No. It was never a law, and only useful idiots (political term, The britain, so don't go issuing your tyrannical warnings/bans over that) parroted these ideas and everyone who hadn't read it went on with their lives never obeying the rules and nothing happened except for the occasional group of pse udointellectuals of the peasant class who would have a go at someone in hopes that they'd get social benefits for having done so.

 

In conclusion, just because something is written on the internet doesn't make it true - not even if it's on a university website by godly Scientists™, a government website, the WHO website, the CDC website, your friends blog who's a diversity-hire at a wealthy company, or any other source.

 

And yes, ad hominem attacks CAN BE valid attacks. For example, if a peasant whose ability to do math is that of a 2nd grader and can't think through a checkers parrots some lines from the MSM about a complex and technical topic that you don't have information on or know to be inaccurate, it's worth not giving them the benefit of the doubt or outright telling others that they are unqualified to draw such conclusions. Though they could by sheer chance be correct, the ad hominem attack is going to work out in one's favor almost every time, and the amount you'll be wrong by not trusting the peasant is worth the negligible penalty.  The world is not discretely black and white as some people conveniently and selectively believe. Though there are specific reasons to use it, Ad hominem attacks can be valid debate tactics.

[FullBusinessSuit]

On 6/13/2021 at 6:58 AM, StrixLiterata said:

It's impossible to avoid personal attacks when arguing with FullBusinessSuit, because the idea which he proposes is that all who oppose his political and moral views do so because they're stupid or because they're hypocrites; if you have the patience, read what he wrote in his "why is it always childless atheists who REEE the hardest about climate change?" posts, and you'll see what I mean.

I would debate different opinions on how to resolve the issues we face or even what those problems are, but when the opinion being discussed is
 

then it's personal.

So what? Then issue your personal attack on me, then go back to the topic at hand?

 

I'm not some kind of wimp who can't handle some personal attacks. The Britain, I DO NOT CARE THAT ANYONE HERE PERSONALLY ATTACKS ME. Stop issuing people warnings for this nonsense, and let the conversation continue.

 

If the posts devolve into JUST personal attacks without so much as addressing a meta topic about the information in some way, then maybe do some quality control, but i think issuing penalties because ostensibly someone's fee fees were hurt will destroy these forums. I got penalized on some site for using a VPN and multiple accounts and nowhere on the site did it say that wasn't allowed. Then they added it to the rules and kept all the penalties in place. I stopped using the site that instant and have never so much as visited it for viewing purposes again. And when I told my friend circle, who also used the site, that they were actively monitoring IP addresses and people's account identities they dropped it like a hot potato as well. That site had hardly any users/posts as it was and after losing us they must have really taken a hit as we were posting a good portion of the site's most popular content. I have not even heard the website's name mentioned online since then, and that was about 1.5 years ago. I hope it's dead. And I'll wish death upon this website too if you keep punishing people for petty "offenses".

[Im_CIA]

19 minutes ago, FullBusinessSuit said:

So what? Then issue your personal attack on me, then go back to the topic at hand?

 

 

I admit, it would be fun to have a space for good old fashion IRC death match. But this ain't it: when in Rome, do as the Romans. If you want get cathartic 4chan is that way.

[Shaddy]

6 hours ago, FullBusinessSuit said:

You're supposed to address why one should or shouldn't read what you're putting in front of them.

That sure isn't the way you react when someone identifies one of your posts as worthy of mockery or simply being ignored. You tend to get really upset, which is why it's hilarious that you then write this:

6 hours ago, FullBusinessSuit said:

I'm not some kind of wimp who can't handle some personal attacks. The Britain, I DO NOT CARE THAT ANYONE HERE PERSONALLY ATTACKS ME.

Which is just obviously untrue for anyone that has ever seen a single one of your posts. You can't handle information that contradicts your propagandist opinions, much less a criticism of you personally.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Shaddy (see edit history)

[Im_CIA]

Man I miss this guy.

Better days, I guess