If this convinces a single person, kill yourself.

[Urederra]

People who have the legal authority to do this are called politicians, police officers, doctors, etc.

... politicians... So far in the democratic countries I have lived in no politician have forced me to stop eating.

... police officers... same as politicians.

... doctors... That is why I added the "for duvious reasons" statement. And so far, no doctor have forced me to stop eating. They might advice me to eat less or not to eat some kind of food, but that would be for health reasons.

 

[blackheart]

... politicians... So far in the democratic countries I have lived in no politician have forced me to stop eating.

... police officers... same as politicians.

... doctors... That is why I added the "for duvious reasons" statement. And so far, no doctor have forced me to stop eating. They might advice me to eat less or not to eat some kind of food, but that would be for health reasons.

When and how did not eating enter into this?

 

[VoodooAce]

Can you prove it? .




I tend to believe the facts.
There are millions (I also know how to exaggerate) of examples where the minority was right. Here are a few.

Disproval of the phlogisto theory.
Heliocentrism.
Continental drift.
Spontaneous generation.
Neural sinapsis.
Ether.




It is politically motivated, but you are failing to see it.



Sigh... Ad hominem I'll quote, just in case.



(You attack the people who believe there is a global warming alarmism biias in the media) Remember "the those who believe what the video say are naive or have their opinion written in stone"?



Well, there are a lot of things you are taken as proven while I am skeptic about. Such as the quantitative effect of CO2 levels on global temperatures. Or other factors appart from CO2 levels that might be modifying the weather, included some we might not know yet. Besides, weather has never been constant.

All I can say is you say the debate is 100% politics and 0% science. That's all I need to know about you. Here you go:

Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe that statement.

Yours = 0

 

[Urederra]

When and how did not eating enter into this?

Check Jthejackal post. #37.

I was replying to him when you replied to my reply. apparently without knowing theJackal's first post.

Only thing you are doing is that it makes you look stupid, so it doesn't help anyone. Just ignore if someone tries to insult you.

I don't think so. I would feel stupid, though, if I was caught saying "Continental drift is a nonsense only supported by a bunch of corporate paid scientists" or something similar. Besides, catching people using ye ol' ad hominem fallacy is fun and makes you feel awesome. The only con is having to write it in italics.

Agreed, but the main message of the ads is not that CO2 is only for good, but that the mainstream media says that it is only for bad. Specially the second ad, Note that they don't deny or hide the studies that claim glaciar melting, they denounce that the studies that say otherwise don't appear in mainstream media

That is partly true but you don't find those commercials being disturbing? They talk that living like we do now doesn't change anything and more is always better. But I guess it depends on viewpoint really.

Well, I find disturbing the apocaliptic commercials based on phoney computational predictions aired by the mainstream media. It must depend on the point of view.

Look above and my statement stands. Or have you been lately working close to old coal plants? Probably not.

I looked above and I was replying to this: 'People saying that burning up fossil fuels doesn't affect enviroment are simply insane or have lived in bubble for all their lives.' That is just ...

Spoiler :

you guessed it: Ad hominem attack

As said I'm not sure how much they affect but they do affect. If you deny that simple fact then the discussion is over because you do live in a bubble then.

And I haven't denied it. All I have said is whether the effect is minimal or not is not known, Hence we agreed in that point. The discrepancies comes when:
-The media is politized with global warming alarmism without any knowledge of the extent of the effects, and nobody find that disturbing, but when somebody makes a commercial denouncing the bias of the issue, then people starts threads with titles like "If this convinces a single person, kill yourself" and it gets filled with insults to the people who actually agree that the media is biased towards global warming alarmism.
-somebody tries to dictate everybody's lifestyles without knowing the extent of the effects and he/she gets clapped by the "liberal" media (oh! the irony). But when somebody else denounces the dictatorial practices, he/she gets booed and insulted.

Scientifically can be proven many things but right now we don't know the effects in larger scale. I'm pointing out that some people seem to be ready to take risks and some people play it safe.

And, as I said before, If you believe what the alarmists say, feel free to change your lifestyle, I am not goint to prevent you from doing what you want. But please, don't dictate mine.

If you want to take risk and think that our current way of living is good for the future, please keep doing that way but remember that your kids might have to carry the deed with them.

Just because I think about my kids I wanted to be sure before taking any decision that is going to affect everybody's life. And right now, as you confessed, we are not sure whether the effects are minimal or not. And changing our actual lifestyles can affect the wellbeing of future generations, for the bad. It would be stupid to spoil their future just because we are affraid of unknown and not proven effects.

 

[Urederra]

All I can say is you say the debate is 100% politics and 0% science. That's all I need to know about you. Here you go:


Yours = 0

I am glad to repeat that credibility is only important for religion and politics, In science credibility is nothing, The only important thing is the facts.

 

[VoodooAce]

And is it fact that you believe the global warming debate is 100% politics and 0% science?

 

[Urederra]

The commercials, specially the third one, is 100% politics, and 0% science. The second at least shows a couple of scientific articles.

 

[blackheart]

The commercials, specially the third one, is 100% politics, and 0% science. The second at least shows a couple of scientific articles.

Except the second one doesn't show the ENTIRE science behind it, as already explained by Rad Chris:

"The studies that show the icesheets getting thicker simply back up the current climate models promoteing global warming. It sounds counter intuitive but its true, think of it this way.

If you heat up water you get more humidity which forms clouds. The clouds then follow low/high pressure gradients to the centre of the glacier. The clouds cool down and snow, increasing the thickness of the CENTRE of the glacier. This is why the studies showed INTERIOR growth of icesheets, but the net loss is still there."

 

[Bill3000]

I looked above and I was replying to this: 'People saying that burning up fossil fuels doesn't affect enviroment are simply insane or have lived in bubble for all their lives.' That is just ...

Uh, no it isn't. A fallicious ad hominem argument goes like this:

1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

That's when it is wrong.

But it can go like this: (From Wikipedia)

Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy.

Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments.

1. A committed perjury when he said Q.
2. We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed.
3. Therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected.

Please, learn what something is before you accuse someone of it.

Besides, internet debates (as well as politics in general) are all about logical fallacies. While debates are meant to avoid them, they are used anyway.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

how did we come out of the last ice age without pollution?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

"They call it pollution, we call it life."

Putting the two sets of ads together... Al Gore is feeding trees by the thousands!

It takes some serious politics to ignore scientific evidence.

 

[Elrohir]

What are you talking about? Al Gore is the Tree's of Endor!

 

[C~G]

Besides, catching people usin I was replying to him when you replied to my reply. apparently without g ye ol' ad hominem fallacy is fun and makes you feel awesome. The only con is having to write it in italics.

I see. Well, if it gives you kicks...please continue to do so.

Well, I find disturbing the apocaliptic commercials based on phoney computational predictions aired by the mainstream media. It must depend on the point of view.

I agree somewhat that it has become mainstream issue where facts are lost but you don't find awkward that companies that produce the pollution promote themselves at the same time being progressional and enviromental?

I looked above and I was replying to this: 'People saying that burning up fossil fuels doesn't affect enviroment are simply insane or have lived in bubble for all their lives.' That is just ...

So for you nothing has changed during past twenty years or more when it comes to changing industrial output in terms of saving enviroment?
I could start the use same fallacy against you because quite a lot has happened. I'm pretty sure what your answer would be in this. Might I point out that you haven't shown any evidence and your latin phrase has become just a lousy excuse for it. Another one in the store?
There comes a quite often a point using those debate terms and not actual real language that both start to use same phrases. I'm not looking for such debates that turn into debate of debate who won the debate.

-The media is politized with global warming alarmism without any knowledge of the extent of the effects, and nobody find that disturbing, but when somebody makes a commercial denouncing the bias of the issue, then people starts threads with titles like "If this convinces a single person, kill yourself" and it gets filled with insults to the people who actually agree that the media is biased towards global warming alarmism.

Well, it surely didn't convince me and I think he is right. And I'm not even talking about the whole carbon dioxide scene but those ads. They are simply astoundingly crazy. One with the Gore as mentioned is quite funny even though it seems to contradict the other two.

-somebody tries to dictate everybody's lifestyles without knowing the extent of the effects and he/she gets clapped by the "liberal" media (oh! the irony). But when somebody else denounces the dictatorial practices, he/she gets booed and insulted.

I understand. But look around you, there's no other way to make people listen that there might be something deeply wrong not in the way we live but in the what that lifestyle produces.

Just because I think about my kids I wanted to be sure before taking any decision that is going to affect everybody's life. And right now, as you confessed, we are not sure whether the effects are minimal or not. And changing our actual lifestyles can affect the wellbeing of future generations, for the bad. It would be stupid to spoil their future just because we are affraid of unknown and not proven effects.

You are talking about extremes. That is just politics. It hasn't anything to do with reality. And that is a problem because we need political decision which requires considering all the possible effects for future so the lifestyle could stay like that. Which is difficult but it seems that you aren't even considering the risks but turning blindside towards them. It doesn't help put your head into sand it's clear humans do affect enviroment. My worst conclusion from that isn't that the effect is in a way what you say mainstream media is yelling about. My worry is that there's something we haven't considered as factor yet. So we must keep looking but at the sametime act at least somewhat into basis of some scientific studies. When talking about risks of the future, there are always lot of ifs. You cannot escape that fact, but you have to keep guessing along the way and make small steps for sustained development.

Of course like said the whole thing got way out of control long ago as it became political tool and weapon but it doesn't make the issue any less important.

For me it's always the practical issues that I'm concerned with and the fact that do people count all factors in rather than some political gibberish. Of course the media is biased. I find myself quite often amused of these horrible drama that media creates about some issues but it doesn't mean there wouldn't be any truth behind them. It's quite logical they make some noise, it's called "vocal minority" It must be done so people see that there are issues involved in our everyday living that we don't necessary notice, which we maybe should.

I'm more concerned about people who don't do anything and just think that things must go on as they are now. Nothing is going to make change their mind whatever scientific evidence comes along because they always considerer it have political agenda and/or threaten them what they are doing right now. So if it doesn't become from right quarter it's dismissed.

If someone's political or social viewpoint cripples his way to see the whole truth from invidual spread out facts from which he chooses to support those depending how his own lifestyle is affected there's no way to convince him of anything belonging beyond his own lifesphere. Then it can happen only through strong emotional connection. Key to the heart in this case are the children and their future.

It seems that you and I agree somewhat but the problem comes when you think of me as someone who tries to change everything in current way of living. People want be sure that they are secure now and in the future. Taking possible enviromental risks into considerations just makes it more real. I don't see how doing that really destroys the lifes of the future for the children. Not like we would be planning going to back live on the trees or in the caves.

Messages seemed to end up being quite long so you don't have to answer it if you don't want to.
Just wanted to make my viewpoint (un)clear(er).

 

[Chairman Meow]

I can't get the video to play. Stupid Windows Media files. It probably wasn't worth wasting my time on anyway.

 

[Che Guava]

"Advancing liberty: from the Economy to Ecology"

What an odd mission statement..! Sure, you can push for more liberty in the marketplace, but ecology...? Is part of thier mission to tell the trees that they don't have to be satisfied with thier ecological niche?

 

[Odin2006]

People who force other people to do things against their will are called dictators.

What a bunch of libertarian crap.
Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lambert Simnel]

ad hominem attack, ad hominen attack...

Actually, you're just being really annoying now.

I realise that this doesn't in itself invalidate your arguments (though Bill3000 presents a solid case for the credibility of the source affecting the credibility of the argument), but, if you're at all interested in convincing people, then you might find more success without these sort of irritating comments.

 

[Urederra]

Lambert, but you have to agree that even the title of the thread is quite biased, isn't it? And if you read the first page, it is full of bashing people who are skeptics and find in the two ads like a breeze of fresh air (meaning, N2, O2, Ar and CO2 ) in the jungle of global warming alarmism.

As I said before, find something false in the first two ads, others tried, but they couldn't. Then watch the third one. It is just bashing Al Gore. Yet, people critisize heavily the first two and say nothing about the third. Again, it seems that ones can do whatever they want to support their views whereas others have to say sorry for my existence.

At this state the one who defends the first two ads (meaning me) has to do it by measuring every single word he uses and yet he gets insulted. And apparently that's fine because I am defending something that is not very popular. How could it be popular if the ones who dare to defend the other point of view got mistreated? At the and is more comfortable to follow the wave, join the mob and poke at the infidel.

But, anyway, for the sake of our friendship (I hope there is some kind of friendship over the internet) I'll stop doing that. I just hope to recieve a fair treatment.

BTW, the one-liners who just posted general bashing statements have been added to my ignore list. (meaning Odin) (I didn't find any constructive comment from that poster, anyway)

What I don't get is why people blame the oil companies for polluting when they are just the providers. We, the consumers, are the polluters, get over it.

EDIT: Oh... and regarding Bill3000 post: I know that, that is why I was claiming ad hominem attacks most of the time, as you quoted very well, not ad hominem fallacies. You know, when people attacks the one exposing an argument, instead of attacking the argument itself.

The 'funny' thing is that Bill3000 cites the very same wiki article I cited where it differenciates between ad hominem arguments ( I call them attacks, it is more descriptive) and ad hominem fallacies, and it does so at the beginning of the article, even before the part Bill3000 quotes.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity below).

The validity below is what Bill3000 quoted

 

[C~G]

At this state the one who defends the first two ads (meaning me) has to do it by measuring every single word he uses and yet he gets insulted. And apparently that's fine because I am defending something that is not very popular. How could it be popular if the ones who dare to defend the other point of view got mistreated? At the and is more comfortable to follow the wave, join the mob and poke at the infidel.

I could use your latin phrase here now.
Now you seem to be saying that because the global warming view is popular people join the fray and defend their position because of the mob. That isn't anything but overlooking the possibility that each poster has own view about the subject which they tried to point out including you. Don't try to link all the others having different point of view from you in to the same gang.

What I don't get is why people blame the oil companies for polluting when they are just the providers. We, the consumers, are the polluters, get over it.

Hmm.
Behind those ads we can see energy companies behind. They try to convince people, possible consumers, to stop worrying and following the path they have been shown.
So counter your point, for me the whole thread is about if these ads change your mind and make you consume they want you to do, you should kill yourself. So it's not really about blaming the oil companies but the consumers in the first place for being so stupid and listening. Question was, who is listening really? Apparently you buy it, some others don't.

What comes to ad hominem, it isn't anything but debate tactic to try to irritate hell out of people when in truth one hasn't really anything else to say. It doesn't make one Socrates even if this person happens to use latin. It is bashing one-liner as good as any other. Unfortunately some think that ínternet discussion is about launching as many possible fallacy attacks as possible towards other people so they could feel themselves satisfied and make other people feel stupid. Especially this is true with those who have had too many classes of classical studies.
So in the end it isn't anymore who has valid point about the actual subject and not but it turns into fight who knows the ropes of internet debate and who doesn't, making the whole discussion waste of time after all.
Nobody learns a thing but probably everybody tries to evade the whole issue in the future knowing that it won't lead into anywhere.

 

[Urederra]

Sorry for my existence