Originally posted by Starhawk
Re-read what you quoted.
I'm just going to quote you here
Originally posted by Starhawk
It's there read back, it may not agree with you so you have a hard time recognizing it. Just like the reports I am going to scan, they don;t support your side so they can't possibly be right.
You ignore evidence before you have seen it, just because it doesn't support your argument so it can't possibly be right. You really are a hypocrite.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Again your behavior is like a child who gets frustrated and can only respond by insulting.
No, I asked you a dozen times to watch the movie, watch our argument you refuse to do so by saying you have seen other evidence, evidence that we didn't even bring up. You say the scientific community is all that matters, when it's the exact same scientific appears in the movie I asked you to watch...
You refuse to do so, you refuse to listen to any argument you refuse to read sources you refuse to even answer simple questions. You don't know how to debate and you blame us for not accepting that. I might insult you, but that's because I'm sick and tired of reading the same sentence a dozen times, without you even replying to what I said or asked you to do. Please just learn to debate and then come back here.
Originally posted by Starhawk
That same sentence addresses what you are saying, but because it doesn't agree with you, you ignore it.
How can you accuse me of ignoring anything when you are the one that refuses to watch evidence? Are you just trying to annoy as many people as possible, or are you really just that blind to how the world works? Please say it's the first, it would be really sad if it's the second.
Originally posted by Starhawk
No I am saying [b]I have seen your right wing evidence on many politically based shows and I don't agree and neither does an extremely large portion of the scientific community. [/B]
Come on, Fishy, give the guy a break. Just because Starhawk gets his inside information from Judge Judy doesn't mean he isn't credible.
Originally posted by Starhawk
That same sentence addresses what you are saying, but because it doesn't agree with you, you ignore it.
I didn't ignore it.
Originally posted by botankus
I think it was fairly obvious that the Whob Approach was being utilized from post #1.Teh (haha) Whob Approach, in this example, is where he pretends to be a hardcore Canadian and left-wing environmentalist and makes himself look so ridiculous (info off of politically-based TV shows? Come on...) that he is actually forming an attack on Canadian and left-wing environmentalists - all in one swoop.
Originally posted by Starhawk
No I am saying [b]I have seen your right wing evidence on many politically based shows and I don't agree and neither does an extremely large portion of the scientific community.Read the bold portion a few hundred times if thats what it takes. [/B]
So you have seen the movie?
Starhawk:
Could you write a paragraph or so that outlines what you see as the hypothesis people are promoting here?
I will just throw this out as well. I'm sure if this were a much more reasonable debate, the lines wouldn't be drawn as Starhawk v all. I can tell you for a fact that fishy and I disagree on some fairly fundamental points of global warming...
Originally posted by inimalist
Starhawk:Could you write a paragraph or so that outlines what you see as the hypothesis people are promoting here?
I will just throw this out as well. I'm sure if this were a much more reasonable debate, the lines wouldn't be drawn as Starhawk v all. I can tell you for a fact that fishy and I disagree on some fairly fundamental points of global warming...
They are promoting the fact that it is worth letting the environment collapse to save big business the minor financial inconveniencing of changing the way they do things to reduce their damage to out environment. Nuclear power is a good supplants to wind and solar power, provided it has enough federal regulation to minimize the danger.
The brilliant conservative party's idea is to replace light-bulbs with ones that pose a greater risk to the environment and cannot be disposed normally.