Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albed
When someones actions conflict with their words then only the weakest minds continue to believe their words.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona
Again, logical fallacy. If someone came up to you and said "it is not good to shoot yourself in the head" and then shot himself in the head, not only would you probably continue to believe their(his) words, you might even have more reason than before to do so.
|
|
I'd believe that he thought it was good for him to shoot himself in the head and that his opinion that it's not good for others may still be valid. Can't you even produce a hypothetical that contains cognitive dissonance? Maybe you need to check the definition.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albed
You've used it in your argument so if you don't think it's true that would make you a hypo...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona
I used it in my argument as an inconclusive, because my argument is that it's inconclusive, you just can't stand to hear it apparently. I don't have the luxury to approach information and pretend I'm determining its truth by simply sorting it into two categories according to which political agendists find it more popular. That process obviously must be very satisfying for you in some way, but I'll just have to slag along evaluating the merit of ideas according to their own particular cases and inherent characteristics, sometimes not reaching a primary conclusion at all.
|
|
Blah, blah, blah, a lot of hot air just to say you disagree with me without actually believing in the basis of your disagreement. Pathetic but typical; you stand for nothing and are against people who stand for anything.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albed
When something doesn't exist it produces no "proof" of its non-existance, only an absence of evidence. You've become as pathetic as the rest of the religious lamers who demand the same "proof" that god doesn't exist.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone
It is nonsensical to ask for proof of non-existence, but that's not what I asked
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone
In fact when you, or Mazer or Drakonix or anyone else who maintains anthropogenic climate changes are "not supported by science" can produce one bit of scientific evidence that conclusively refutes it,...
|
Can't understand your own writing huh? Not suprising, your ability to understand anything seems severely impared.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona
You pretend to know that the sum cumulative effect of these changes is negligible and that certain subsequent changes are not occurring and will not occur.
|
Have any quotes to support that? My actual opinion is it's not a big deal and the people getting scared by that information are weak-minded idiots.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona
Your vague, primitive and virtually unsubstantiated premise seems to be that man will apparently never alter the environment significantly enough to change the weather patterns and elemental distributions which sustain its current climate.
|
That may be what it seems like to your warped mind but it really is that scumbag politicians are scaring all you clueless, gullible lackeys with predictions of doom and gloom if great restrictions aren't put on the rest of humanity; all while they make extraordinarily hypocritical violations of those proposed restrictions themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona
This is a theorem exactly as global warming is a theorem,
|
The lack of something isn't something in itself. You just can't understand even that simple logic so it's no suprise you can't understand more complex reasoning.
Quote:
|
That global warming is alarmism and stupid and thought up by manipulative hypocrites isn't evidence pertaining to your premise, but that seems to be all you got.
|
That's all I really claim to have. You do seem capable of understanding my opinion after all.
Quote:
|
Lack of evidence for one thing is not evidence for another. You're still just chattering about your beliefs like a little monkey.
|
So now you're taking my position. Only you would argue against both sides of a debate without taking either side yourself.