: Qx: Actually, I don't think SDF nor I have lost any ability to comprehend or follow a conversation. What next? Are you going to claim property rights over this thread?
Yes, I am (sort of) examine:
1) Person A makes proposition x.
2) Person B claims that x lacks accurately
3) Person C claims Person B is dodging the issue.
Step 3 does not follow from the other two, and C is just simply blowing smoke. This is exactly how the conversation was going:
1) Gideon claims global warming is a serious threat and asks me to find even one piece of information countermanding his sources.
2) I find several and let him know that I don't think the environment is in any danger.
3) You tell me I'm dodging the issue.
Again, step 3 does not follow, and you are just blowing smoke. Gideon gave a specific challenge, which I answered. You came in and accused me of 'dodging. Allow me to reiterate: work on your reading comprehension.
: JJ: Like I said, and made perfectly clear on my post, we don't need to be overly concerned for the environment. It was simple, straightforward, and without any goddamn dodge.
: Qx: There's no such thing as being overly concerned for the environment
Okay, let's say we make the value judgement that humanity leave the environment in 'pristine' condition, untouched by humans. That would require the human race to commit "specie-cide"; that's no joke, as some radical environmentalists have actually advocated this. And, yes, concern for the environment at the expense of human beings is, indeed in my opinion, being overly concerned.
: : : JJ:My point was taht the whole enviro-scare industry is dead wrong and the "global warming" scare is a manufactured issue to drum up support for left wing ideologies.
: : : Qx: Not bad for a conspiracy theory but how about some institutional analysis for once?
: JJ: No conspiricy. Just a simple structural analysis.
: Qx: And if this is what you call a structural analysis then sliced bread is an invention of the future. Either that or provide some real evidence that isn't corporate sponsored. Please?
Again, brush up on your reading comprehension. I'm certainly not corporate sponsored and I'm the one giving the analysis, not some corporation.
: Qx: No, it doesn't. You should provide evidence that you don't rely sopley on right-wing(*hint-corporatists) sources. Too much to ask?
Maybe I should rely on left-wing (hint-statist) sources. Sorces taht have a particular interest in spreading fear of massive environmental catastrophe, regardless of its truth.
: : JJ: Well, in the spirit of Sammy-Boy and you, here goes:
: Qx: Yahoo!! Let's rock!
: JJ: You must approve of all Stalin's brutal slaughter of all the tens of millions of peasants.
: Qx: Ooopsy daisy! Whoa there boy! If you haven't the gumption to read even the earliest of my postings then you don't give yourself a chance to know where my position is in regards to Sovietism. Anyways, you've done the great error of erecting a straw man. Oh well...better luck next time.
And you rape your grandfather every night. You're evil, evil, evil. I'm not trying to say you're in favor of Sovietism. However, if I took on your form of debating I could say that you were both for and against Stalin. I would then try to prove how Stalin was really a little space alien.
: JJ: In fact, you'd probably kill your own mother to get your ideological ideals implemented.
: JJ: Hey, guys brush up on your reading comprehension.
: Qx: Oh we have! Now it's time for you to floss over the details.
: Qx: My oh my! So Al Gore is Satan Incarnate? I don't necessarily trust the man nor his brand of politics but to despise him strikes me as a tad but absurd. By the way, show how the claims of Ralph Nader and Al Gore are absurd. Please.
Go back and read the original post.