Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's funny, but now he's stepped in it. AOC's cult is going to descend upon him and they're gonna attack his credibility, etc.

Patrick Albert Moore has been criticized for years for being a mouthpiece to big corporations like nuclear and logging and somewhat of a climate change denier.

So yeah, what's this thread prove? That the Right has replaced their previous boogeyman of Hillary Clinton with AoC. Only took two years.

b-b-b-but we're just criticizing her policies!

*Greenpeace

Originally posted by Robtard
Patrick Albert Moore has been criticized for years for being a mouthpiece to big corporations like nuclear and logging and somewhat of a climate change denier.

So yeah, what's this thread prove? That the Right has replaced their previous boogeyman of Hillary Clinton with AoC. Only took two years.

Wait...what?


When did Nuclear and Logging become "big corporations"?

The logging industry, for all companies added together, brought in about $16 billion. That's all of them. You can take almost any section of the tech industry and have a much larger slice than that.

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-reports/agriculture-forestry-fishing-hunting/logging/logging.html



And Nuclear?

$37 billion. For all combined. And they run on thin margins with lots of federal subsidy (and state).

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-reports/utilities/nuclear-power.html

To give you an example, AEP's revenue (A single power company that is not Nuclear, I believe) is $15 billion+.



And your point about logging is moot because he's talking about the poorest of poor cutting down all the trees for fuel...why would a pro-logger be upset about being able to monetize logging for a much larger swathe of people? Seems like a dream come true for logging companies if people have to turn to wood for fuel. They'd get massive funding for planting more trees and super huge contracts to start producing. More likely, it would be the agricultural and biomedical sciences that would benefit the most from the higher demand of biofuels. Nuclear might take off but it takes 10 years to setup a plant properly: not a short term solution like massive logging and replantation efforts.



Anyway, your attempt to make him look bad because he attacked AOC's retarded ideas has been noted. Try to ad hominem him is a logical fallacy. Talk about his actual points instead of using the, "Well, he's gay so who cares what he thinks" approach.

That's a lot to type out to strawman me, so I applaud you there, usual it's just one lazy line. My point (first paragraph) was that attacks on Patrick Albert Moore are not new, he's been attacked for being a mouth piece to corporations and agencies that tend to come into conflict with environmental groups for years, it's not new.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a lot to type out to strawman me, so I applaud you there, usual it's just one lazy line. My point (first paragraph) was that attacks on Patrick Albert Moore are not new, he's been attacked for being a mouth piece to corporations and agencies that tend to come into conflict with environmental groups for years, it's not new.


You're misusing strawman. I think you meant to say "cherrypicking" but that would be wrong a well. I used both your examples you provided for why he's a mouthpiece for big corporations. I directly addressed your specific arguments and supporting reasons. I know it's uncomfortable and even exasperating to be confronted by someone who's actually good at engaging topics logically and with evidence instead of the usual monkey poop throwing that you see.



If you don't like the examples that I took apart, choose better examples when you try to ad hominem someone you don't like because of your poorly thought out partisan reasons.


Even better, instead of using logical fallacies like ad hominems, make a real argument. Best yet, just admit the AOC's idea is retarded AF and poorly thought out.

You claimed I was attacking the man here, I was not. I noted that attacks on him and his credibility in regards to environmental issues have been in contention for years. Even Greenpeace notes that he uses his previous ties to GP as a tool to lobby for certain entities that come into conflict with GP.

You took nothing apart. Do pat yourself on the back some more though. The kids are watching.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait...what?


When did Nuclear and Logging become "big corporations"?

The logging industry, for all companies added together, brought in about $16 billion. That's all of them. You can take almost any section of the tech industry and have a much larger slice than that.

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-reports/agriculture-forestry-fishing-hunting/logging/logging.html



And Nuclear?

$37 billion. For all combined. And they run on thin margins with lots of federal subsidy (and state).

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-reports/utilities/nuclear-power.html

To give you an example, AEP's revenue (A single power company that is not Nuclear, I believe) is $15 billion+.



And your point about logging is moot because he's talking about the poorest of poor cutting down all the trees for fuel...why would a pro-logger be upset about being able to monetize logging for a much larger swathe of people? Seems like a dream come true for logging companies if people have to turn to wood for fuel. They'd get massive funding for planting more trees and super huge contracts to start producing. More likely, it would be the agricultural and biomedical sciences that would benefit the most from the higher demand of biofuels. Nuclear might take off but it takes 10 years to setup a plant properly: not a short term solution like massive logging and replantation efforts.



Anyway, your attempt to make him look bad because he attacked AOC's retarded ideas has been noted. Try to ad hominem him is a logical fallacy. Talk about his actual points instead of using the, "Well, he's gay so who cares what he thinks" approach.

None of that means they can't pay someone to promote their interests.

That being said, it doesn't mean he believes in those same interests anyway so why wouldn't someone use that to get paid?

I do think he's strawmanning her position in order to attack it though.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
None of that means they can't pay someone to promote their interests.

That being said, it doesn't mean he believes in those same interests anyway so why wouldn't someone use that to get paid?

I do think he's strawmanning her position in order to attack it though.

How is he strawmanning her position?

Originally posted by Robtard
You claimed I was attacking the man here, I was not. I noted that attacks on him and his credibility in regards to environmental issues have been in contention for years. Even Greenpeace notes that he uses his previous ties to GP as a tool to lobby for certain entities that come into conflict with GP.

You took nothing apart. Do pat yourself on the back some more though. The kids are watching.


"I did not attack him!'

*Proceeds to layout exactly how he attacked him*

Alright then, chap.

https://i.imgur.com/4HANQE4.png


Care to actually address the points, though? I mean, you can try to play lawyer word games and act like you didn't try to bring the ad hominem insult hammer to avoid addressing his actual points.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
None of that means they can't pay someone to promote their interests.

That being said, it doesn't mean he believes in those same interests anyway so why wouldn't someone use that to get paid?

I do think he's strawmanning her position in order to attack it though.

Here's the thing about people coming from a position of bias: you can still have a bias but make a correct point.




It's very much obvious that the GND is retarded AF and some of those reasons Mr. Angry Greenpeacer outlined. But, no, this is about defending AOC because she's Latina Jesus or some weird Demigoddess for the left. Looks like I get to be the iconoclast. WEEEEE!

I always LAUGH when ever Robbie tries to pull the "Only the RIGHT supports Big Corporations" schtick... Lolzers!

Another instance where rob loses the argument almost immediately because he thought trolling and baseless claims would work.

You mean They DON'T!?

Originally posted by dadudemon
"I did not attack him!'

*Proceeds to layout exactly how he attacked him*

Alright then, chap.

https://i.imgur.com/4HANQE4.png


Care to actually address the points, though? I mean, you can try to play lawyer word games and act like you didn't try to bring the ad hominem insult hammer to avoid addressing his actual points. Cool, pic, bro. Noting the criticism that he's a lobbyist for certain groups, isn't it. Unless you think I'm behind it all. But I'll play your games anyways.

His first point is correct, we can't ride ourselves of fossil fuels anytime soon. We can reduce the need for them by upping renewable like wind and solar, I've said this many a time over the years, eg my last big talk was with Kurk over it. AOC's timetable is not realistic, but that doesn't mean her end-goal is stupid, justs needs to be tweaked to fit reality.

The second one seems like he's strawmanning her while ranting? IIRC, her comment was about Climate Change being this generation's WWII, I took that as the big fight that must be faced. Though not 100% sure what his exact point was here

AOC says the World is DOOMED in 12 years so why even bother at this point. Let the PARTYGGEDON BEGIN!!!!!!

If the world is doomed in 12 years and action on this is so urgent, why does she want to pour any government spending into all these other costly priorities?

Because she is Stupid and a Hypocrite?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If the world is doomed in 12 years and action on this is so urgent, why does she want to pour any government spending into all these other costly priorities?

Did she actually say that as a fact, or was it hyperbole to push the "we need change now" sentiment?

Difficult to tell with her.

Fair enough. I doubt she meant it literally, that in 2031ish, we're all dead.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How is he strawmanning her position?

Because he's making out that her policy is to ban fossil fuels across the entire planet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"I did not attack him!'

*Proceeds to layout exactly how he attacked him*

Alright then, chap.

https://i.imgur.com/4HANQE4.png


Care to actually address the points, though? I mean, you can try to play lawyer word games and act like you didn't try to bring the ad hominem insult hammer to avoid addressing his actual points.

Since when has there been some sort of age restriction on who can and cant talk about ww2?

There isn't, but seeing her retarded comment. maybe there should be an IQ restriction.

So his plan was to respond to her retarded comments with a reterded one of his own. Weird strategy.

Do u really believe there possibly should be an iq restriction or were u just engaging in the same kind of hyperbole she probably was when she made her comments about it being our ww2 and such?

Originally posted by SquallX
Putting restrictions on her makes you no better than her. It's always best to let people speak out instead. It also makes it easier to point out their stupidity when they open their mouth.

I'm not putting any restrictions on her.

You literally implied it in this post:Originally posted by Silent Master
There isn't, but seeing her retarded comment. maybe there should be an IQ restriction.

Originally posted by Raptor22
So his plan was to respond to her retarded comments with a reterded one of his own. Weird strategy.

Do u really believe there possibly should be an iq restriction or were u just engaging in the same kind of hyperbole she probably was when she made her comments about it being our ww2 and such?

My point was that it's better to be silent and thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

The lady could use some minders.

Pompous twit

Originally posted by Robtard
You literally implied it in this post:


That wasn't my implication at all, you inferring something doesn't mean I was implying it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That wasn't my implication at all, you inferring something doesn't mean I was implying it. You implied there should be "IQ restrictions"; that's a restriction. But I see you're trying your time-waster-troll routine again, so that's that.

Rob is lying, I never actually said there should be a IQ restriction. I posed a possibility that "maybe there should be". he needs to learn to curb his bias.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Rob is lying, I never actually said there should be a IQ restriction. I posed a possibility that "maybe there should be". he needs to learn to curb his bias.

Rob usually lies about most things. TDS has rotted his brain

Originally posted by Silent Master
My point was that it's better to be silent and thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doub. words of wisdom.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16821646&highlight=userid%3A118272#post16821646

Pompous little twit

He's never been able to keep up with a conversation.

Originally posted by Robtard
His first point is correct, we can't ride ourselves of fossil fuels anytime soon. We can reduce the need for them by upping renewable like wind and solar, I've said this many a time over the years, eg my last big talk was with Kurk over it. AOC's timetable is not realistic, but that doesn't mean her end-goal is stupid, justs needs to be tweaked to fit reality.

The second one seems like he's strawmanning her while ranting? IIRC, her comment was about Climate Change being this generation's WWII, I took that as the big fight that must be faced. Though not 100% sure what his exact point was here

Thanks for taking the time to address his points directly with a bit of effort. I think you forgot what Robtard of old was like and you've been talking to the miscreants for so long that you almost forgot what it was like to put down a stream of thoughts on this message board.

To your first point, agree 100%. I would use stronger language than you, though: it needs to be tweaked quite a bit but the objectives don't really need to change. The objectives are not even controversial, really.

To this point, I disagree. AOC truly and honestly believes humans will die by the tens of millions in the next 10-20 years similar to WWII levels of death. She's made this clear with her "world is ending in 12 years" point, too. I thought she was making a point and it was symbolic but she doubled down on it instead of saying, "Don't be idiots, it was clearly a tipping point of no return that I was talking about, not the literal end of the world." Wish she would say that, though.