Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #243340 > unrolled thread

OT: Global Climate Change Debate

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-12 21:40 -0700
    Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 12:25 +0000
      Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 08:11 -0700
        Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 09:35 -0700
        Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 18:40 +0000
          Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> - 2014-05-13 14:43 -0400
            Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 18:52 +0000
              Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 12:00 -0700
                Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 19:34 +0000
                  Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 12:44 -0700
                    Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 19:52 +0000
                      Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:24 -0700
                        Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2014-05-13 20:35 +0000
                          Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 13:55 -0700
                          Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-13 15:29 -0600
                            Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 14:29 -0700
                      Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-05-13 15:28 -0600
                        Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 14:30 -0700
            Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 12:01 -0700
          Re: OT: Global Climate Change Debate Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-05-13 11:44 -0700

#243340 — OT: Global Climate Change Debate

<http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg>

Excellent debate... love it!

Of course, the reality is a count of people does not prove a point... it is
the evidence that matters. But the evidence is solid and the deniers have
*nothing*. But like the morons who insist I am wrong because liars in COLA
claim I am, even without any evidence, many of the same people insist logic
and science and evidence and data and reasoning are wrong because, um,
CONSPIRACY CRAP!

Pretty much.

Oh, this is for my favorite conspiracy whacko: <http://climate.nasa.gov>.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#243356

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> <http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg>
> 
> Excellent debate... love it!
> 
> Of course, the reality is a count of people does not prove a point... it is
> the evidence that matters. But the evidence is solid and the deniers have
> *nothing*. But like the morons who insist I am wrong because liars in COLA
> claim I am, even without any evidence, many of the same people insist logic
> and science and evidence and data and reasoning are wrong because, um,
> CONSPIRACY CRAP!
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> Oh, this is for my favorite conspiracy whacko: <http://climate.nasa.gov>.
> 

So your reasoning is based on an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy.
Nice self-nuke.  LOL!
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243381

On 5/13/14, 5:25 AM, in article htu300.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> <http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg>
>> 
>> Excellent debate... love it!
>> 
>> Of course, the reality is a count of people does not prove a point... it is
>> the evidence that matters. But the evidence is solid and the deniers have
>> *nothing*. But like the morons who insist I am wrong because liars in COLA
>> claim I am, even without any evidence, many of the same people insist logic
>> and science and evidence and data and reasoning are wrong because, um,
>> CONSPIRACY CRAP!
>> 
>> Pretty much.
>> 
>> Oh, this is for my favorite conspiracy whacko: <http://climate.nasa.gov>.
>> 
> 
> So your reasoning is based on an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy.
> Nice self-nuke.  LOL!

1) The media presents a false image that there is a debate in the scientific
community. This is a lie and they do a disservice to people to push it.

2) The facts speak for themselves. Man-made global climate change is very
well supported by the facts... from many different disciplines.

3) There are deniers who have *nothing* to back their views... nothing
rational anyway.

4) On seeing these you whine I have "self-nuked", because you are trolling.




-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243418

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:11:04 PM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 5/13/14, 5:25 AM, in article htu300.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> 
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
> >> <http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg>
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> Excellent debate... love it!
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> Of course, the reality is a count of people does not prove a point... it is
> 
> >> the evidence that matters. But the evidence is solid and the deniers have
> 
> >> *nothing*. But like the morons who insist I am wrong because liars in COLA
> 
> >> claim I am, even without any evidence, many of the same people insist logic
> 
> >> and science and evidence and data and reasoning are wrong because, um,
> 
> >> CONSPIRACY CRAP!
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> Pretty much.
> 
> >> 
> 
> >> Oh, this is for my favorite conspiracy whacko: <http://climate.nasa.gov>.
> 
> >> 
> 
> > 
> 
> > So your reasoning is based on an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy.
> 
> > Nice self-nuke.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The media presents a false image that there is a debate in the scientific
> 
> community. This is a lie and they do a disservice to people to push it.
> 
The media talks about global warming because they are liberal weenies shilling for Obama.
> 
> 2) The facts speak for themselves. Man-made global climate change is very
> 
> well supported by the facts... from many different disciplines.
> 
The climate has always been changing. 
> 
> 3) There are deniers who have *nothing* to back their views... nothing
> 
> rational anyway.
> 
Nothing "rational" to note how the climate has always changed? Bullshit.
> 
> 4) On seeing these you whine I have "self-nuked", because you are trolling.
> 
That is you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> * Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
> 
> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
> 
> * Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
> 
> * Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
> 
> * Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
> 
> * Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
> 
> * Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
> 
> * Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
> 
> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

Another forum ruined by 
Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy of Prescott, Arizona 86301 
http://prescottcomputerguy.com 
The best website design in Prescott, AZ is shown at his own site 
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/web-design.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243450

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/14, 5:25 AM, in article htu300.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> <http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg>
>>> 
>>> Excellent debate... love it!
>>> 
>>> Of course, the reality is a count of people does not prove a point... it is
>>> the evidence that matters. But the evidence is solid and the deniers have
>>> *nothing*. But like the morons who insist I am wrong because liars in COLA
>>> claim I am, even without any evidence, many of the same people insist logic
>>> and science and evidence and data and reasoning are wrong because, um,
>>> CONSPIRACY CRAP!
>>> 
>>> Pretty much.
>>> 
>>> Oh, this is for my favorite conspiracy whacko: <http://climate.nasa.gov>.
>>> 
>> 
>> So your reasoning is based on an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy.
>> Nice self-nuke.  LOL!
> 
> 1) The media presents a false image that there is a debate in the scientific
> community. This is a lie and they do a disservice to people to push it.
> 
> 2) The facts speak for themselves. Man-made global climate change is very
> well supported by the facts... from many different disciplines.
> 
> 3) There are deniers who have *nothing* to back their views... nothing
> rational anyway.
> 
> 4) On seeing these you whine I have "self-nuked", because you are trolling.
> 

Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following your
call for "logic" and "reasoning."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243453

On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:

> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following your
> call for "logic" and "reasoning."

Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.

-- 
Silver Slimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243456

Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:
> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:
> 
>> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following your
>> call for "logic" and "reasoning."
> 
> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.
> 

Yeah, I only popped in for a moment and thought I'd poke him a bit.  I've
got too much going on in real life at the moment to stay for long.  No time
for a circus. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243460

On 5/13/14, 11:52 AM, in article hgnt803a.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:
>> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:
>> 
>>> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following
>>> your
>>> call for "logic" and "reasoning."
>> 
>> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
>> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.
>> 
> 
> Yeah, I only popped in for a moment and thought I'd poke him a bit.

You spewed your idiotic conspiracy nonsense... making yourself look the
fool. So be it.

> I've
> got too much going on in real life at the moment to stay for long.  No time
> for a circus. :)

Bottom line: you know your whacked out conspiracy nonsense is completely
contrary to known facts. And you know it is offensive to those who died and
those who loved them, but you do not care.



-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243467

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/14, 11:52 AM, in article hgnt803a.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:
>>> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following
>>>> your
>>>> call for "logic" and "reasoning."
>>> 
>>> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
>>> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, I only popped in for a moment and thought I'd poke him a bit.
> 
> You spewed your idiotic conspiracy nonsense... making yourself look the
> fool. So be it.
> 
>> I've
>> got too much going on in real life at the moment to stay for long.  No time
>> for a circus. :)
> 
> Bottom line: you know your whacked out conspiracy nonsense is completely
> contrary to known facts. And you know it is offensive to those who died and
> those who loved them, but you do not care.
> 

Bottom line: you lash out at my opinion on those events because you cannot
provide evidence to support the government propaganda. 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243470

On 5/13/14, 12:34 PM, in article hgu00a3.gf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/14, 11:52 AM, in article hgnt803a.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:
>>>> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following
>>>>> your
>>>>> call for "logic" and "reasoning."
>>>> 
>>>> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
>>>> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yeah, I only popped in for a moment and thought I'd poke him a bit.
>> 
>> You spewed your idiotic conspiracy nonsense... making yourself look the
>> fool. So be it.
>> 
>>> I've
>>> got too much going on in real life at the moment to stay for long.  No time
>>> for a circus. :)
>> 
>> Bottom line: you know your whacked out conspiracy nonsense is completely
>> contrary to known facts. And you know it is offensive to those who died and
>> those who loved them, but you do not care.
>> 
> 
> Bottom line: you lash out at my opinion on those events because you cannot
> provide evidence to support the government propaganda.
>  
  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
    -----
    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?

    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
    not just randomness.

    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?

    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
    of reasoning.
    -----

That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243472

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/14, 12:34 PM, in article hgu00a3.gf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/13/14, 11:52 AM, in article hgnt803a.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:
>>>>> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> call for "logic" and "reasoning."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
>>>>> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, I only popped in for a moment and thought I'd poke him a bit.
>>> 
>>> You spewed your idiotic conspiracy nonsense... making yourself look the
>>> fool. So be it.
>>> 
>>>> I've
>>>> got too much going on in real life at the moment to stay for long.  No time
>>>> for a circus. :)
>>> 
>>> Bottom line: you know your whacked out conspiracy nonsense is completely
>>> contrary to known facts. And you know it is offensive to those who died and
>>> those who loved them, but you do not care.
>>> 
>> 
>> Bottom line: you lash out at my opinion on those events because you cannot
>> provide evidence to support the government propaganda.
>>  
>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>    -----
>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
> 
>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>    not just randomness.
> 
>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
> 
>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>    of reasoning.
>    -----
> 
> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
> 

Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal-
to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243480

On 5/13/14, 12:52 PM, in article nvhd00a.3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>>    -----
>>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
>> 
>>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>>    not just randomness.
>> 
>>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
>> 
>>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>>    of reasoning.
>>    -----
>> 
>> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
> 
> Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal-
> to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.

It is a lovely explanation for your belief in idiotic conspiracy theories.
But if you want others, here you go (and, yes, I know none of this will stop
you from pushing your irrational BS... your beliefs in conspiracy nonsense
help you deal with your feelings of being out of control):

<http://goo.gl/f3pqK2> [Psychology Today]
    -----
    Melley proposes that conspiracy thinking arises from a combination
    of two factors, when someone: 1) holds strong individualist values
    and 2) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to
    people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their
    own choices and direct their own lives without interference or
    obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine
    this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and you get
    what Melley calls agency panic, "intense anxiety about an apparent
    loss of autonomy" to outside forces or regulators.

    When fervent individualists feel that they cannot exercise their
    independence, they experience a crisis and assume that larger
    forces are to blame for usurping this freedom. "For one who
    refuses to relinquish the assumptions of liberal individualism,
    such newly revealed forms of regulation frequently seem so
    unacceptable or unbelievable that they can only be met with
    anxiety, melodrama, or panic."
    ...
    For one thing, conspiracy theories help us cope with distressing
    events and make sense out of them. Conspiracies assure us that bad
    things don't just happen randomly. Conspiracies tell us that
    someone out there is accountable, however unwittingly or secretly
    or incomprehensibly, so it's possible to stop these people and
    punish them and in due course let everyone else re-establish
    control over their own lives. Conspiracies also remind us that we
    shouldn't blame ourselves for our predicaments; it's not our
    fault, it's them! In these ways, believing in conspiracies serves
    many of the same self-protective functions as scapegoating.
    -----
    
<http://goo.gl/JQ4NV> [Psychology Today]
    -----
    The number sounded wildly inflated. Conspiracy theorists have a
    grandiose view of themselves as heroes "manning the barricades of
    civilization" at an urgent "turning point" in history, Hofstadter
    held. Jones has a "messiah complex," Black contends. Grandiosity
    is often a defense against underlying feelings of powerlessness.

    Even well-grounded skeptics are prone to connect disparate dots
    when they feel disempowered. In a series of studies, Jennifer
    Whitson of the University of Texas and Adam Galinsky of
    Northwestern demonstrated that people primed to feel out of
    control are particularly likely to see patterns in random stimuli.
    -----
    
<http://goo.gl/v0dU9> [NY Times]
    -----
    "If you know the truth and others don't, that's one way you can
    reassert feelings of having agency," Swami says. It can be
    comforting to do your own research even if that research is
    flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.

    Surprisingly, Swami's work has also turned up a correlation
    between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic
    principles. But this isn't quite so strange if you consider the
    context. Kathryn Olmsted, a historian at the University of
    California, Davis, says that conspiracy theories wouldn't exist in
    a world in which real conspiracies don't exist. And those
    conspiracies -- Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair -- often involve
    manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people
    who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama
    staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for the
    preservation of the Second Amendment.
    ...
    Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy
    theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific
    thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme
    form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional
    media ― which only perpetuates the problem.
    -----
    
<http://goo.gl/psXzzr> [Smart Planet]
    -----
    A new article in Scientific American tries to figure that out.
    Michael Shermer outlines in his "Skeptic" column four traits of
    those who believe:

    * patternicity, or a tendency to find meaningful patterns in
      random noise;
    * agenticity, or the bent to believe the world is controlled by
      invisible intentional agent;
    * confirmation bias, or the seeking and finding of confirmatory
      evidence for what we already believe;
    * hindsight bias, or tailoring after-the-fact explanations to what
      we already know happened.
    
    A conspiracy theory takes flight when all of these are concocted
    into a heady mix of conviction. It's called "conspiratorial
    cognition," and it's the fuel driving belief in Bigfoot, Area 51's
    UFOs and the paranormal.
    ...
    Some points from his article:

    * People who believe in one theory are more likely to believe in
      others.
    * There is a strong association between income and belief levels:
      the better-off are less likely to believe in conspiracy
      theories. (Perhaps this can be chalked up to education.)
    * Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; people prefer to
      imagine living in a predictable, safe world. Some conspiracy
      theories offer accounts that feel "safe" or "predictable."
    * Conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or
      contradicting evidence.
    * Conspiracies usually require a big newsworthy event on which to
      peg it.

    But it's Shermer who drives the point home. He writes:

    "The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that
    would need to be involved, the less likely it is true."
    -----
    
<http://goo.gl/EFn7BG> [LA Times]
    -----
    Conspiracy theories: Why we believe the unbelievable

    Why do so many people refuse to accept this simple and obvious
    conclusion? The answer: psychology.

    There are three psychological effects at work here, starting with
    "cognitive dissonance," or the discomfort felt when holding two
    ideas that are not in harmony. We attempt to reduce the dissonance
    by altering one of the ideas to be in accord with the other.
    ...
    A second psychological effect is the "monological belief system,"
    or "a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together
    in a mutually supportive network," in the words of University of
    Kent researchers Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M.
    Sutton in a 2012 paper titled "Dead and Alive: Beliefs in
    Contradictory Conspiracy Theories." A conspiracy theory, they
    wrote, is "a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations
    working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister)
    goal." Once you believe that "one massive, sinister conspiracy
    could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy [it]
    suggests that many such plots are possible."
    ...
    A third psychological effect is "confirmation bias," or the
    tendency to look for and find confirming evidence for what you
    already believe and to ignore disconfirming evidence. Once you
    believe, say, that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush
    administration, you focus on the handful of anomalies that fateful
    day and connect them into a seemingly meaningful pattern, while
    ignoring the massive evidence pointing to Al Qaeda.
    -----


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243490

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/14, 12:52 PM, in article nvhd00a.3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>>>    -----
>>>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
>>> 
>>>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>>>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>>>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>>>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>>>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>>>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>>>    not just randomness.
>>> 
>>>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
>>> 
>>>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>>>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>>>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>>>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>>>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>>>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>>>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>>>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>>>    of reasoning.
>>>    -----
>>> 
>>> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
>> 
>> Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal-
>> to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.
> 
> It is a lovely explanation for your belief in idiotic conspiracy theories.
> But if you want others, here you go (and, yes, I know none of this will stop
> you from pushing your irrational BS... your beliefs in conspiracy nonsense
> help you deal with your feelings of being out of control):
> 
> <http://goo.gl/f3pqK2> [Psychology Today]
>    -----

Psychology Today?  Really?  Have you ever met *anyone* in the field
of pyschology who didn't start life as a kook and spend the rest of
it seeking to find out what the fuck was wrong with them?

<snip remainder of appeal-to-authority logical fallacies>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243493

On 5/13/14, 1:35 PM, in article ghem.a3p0@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/14, 12:52 PM, in article nvhd00a.3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>>>>    -----
>>>>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
>>>> 
>>>>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>>>>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>>>>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>>>>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>>>>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>>>>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>>>>    not just randomness.
>>>> 
>>>>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
>>>> 
>>>>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>>>>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>>>>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>>>>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>>>>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>>>>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>>>>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>>>>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>>>>    of reasoning.
>>>>    -----
>>>> 
>>>> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
>>> 
>>> Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal-
>>> to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.
>> 
>> It is a lovely explanation for your belief in idiotic conspiracy theories.
>> But if you want others, here you go (and, yes, I know none of this will stop
>> you from pushing your irrational BS... your beliefs in conspiracy nonsense
>> help you deal with your feelings of being out of control):
>> 
>> <http://goo.gl/f3pqK2> [Psychology Today]
>>    -----
> 
> Psychology Today?  Really?  Have you ever met *anyone* in the field
> of pyschology who didn't start life as a kook and spend the rest of
> it seeking to find out what the fuck was wrong with them?
> 
> <snip remainder of appeal-to-authority logical fallacies>

As predicted: evidence and rationality mean nothing to you. It does not
matter to you that your conspiracy theory nonsense springs from your own
feelings of fear and being out of control, it does not matter to you how
irrational and offensive your views are, it does not matter to you that
people are tormenting grieving parents... what matters to you is the
*feeling* you are special and know something others do not.

I cannot change that. You could if you wanted to.



-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243501

On 5/13/2014 2:35 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/14, 12:52 PM, in article nvhd00a.3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>>>>    -----
>>>>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
>>>>
>>>>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>>>>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>>>>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>>>>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>>>>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>>>>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>>>>    not just randomness.
>>>>
>>>>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
>>>>
>>>>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>>>>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>>>>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>>>>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>>>>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>>>>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>>>>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>>>>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>>>>    of reasoning.
>>>>    -----
>>>>
>>>> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
>>>
>>> Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal-
>>> to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.
>>
>> It is a lovely explanation for your belief in idiotic conspiracy theories.
>> But if you want others, here you go (and, yes, I know none of this will stop
>> you from pushing your irrational BS... your beliefs in conspiracy nonsense
>> help you deal with your feelings of being out of control):
>>
>> <http://goo.gl/f3pqK2> [Psychology Today]
>>    -----
> 
> Psychology Today?  Really?  Have you ever met *anyone* in the field
> of pyschology who didn't start life as a kook and spend the rest of
> it seeking to find out what the fuck was wrong with them?
> 

LOL!!!!
He should get his money back.  Of course you know that you are talking
to an ex-Brit.

> <snip remainder of appeal-to-authority logical fallacies>
> 
> 


-- 
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks
to the Internet, we know this is not true -- Robert Wilensky, 1997

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243502

On 5/13/14, 2:29 PM, in article
C86dncn7caw-E-_OnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com>
wrote:

> On 5/13/2014 2:35 PM, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/13/14, 12:52 PM, in article nvhd00a.3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>>>>>    -----
>>>>>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
>>>>> 
>>>>>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>>>>>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>>>>>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>>>>>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>>>>>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>>>>>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>>>>>    not just randomness.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>>>>>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>>>>>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>>>>>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>>>>>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>>>>>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>>>>>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>>>>>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>>>>>    of reasoning.
>>>>>    -----
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
>>>> 
>>>> Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal-
>>>> to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.
>>> 
>>> It is a lovely explanation for your belief in idiotic conspiracy theories.
>>> But if you want others, here you go (and, yes, I know none of this will stop
>>> you from pushing your irrational BS... your beliefs in conspiracy nonsense
>>> help you deal with your feelings of being out of control):
>>> 
>>> <http://goo.gl/f3pqK2> [Psychology Today]
>>>    -----
>> 
>> Psychology Today?  Really?  Have you ever met *anyone* in the field
>> of pyschology who didn't start life as a kook and spend the rest of
>> it seeking to find out what the fuck was wrong with them?
>> 
> 
> LOL!!!!
> He should get his money back.  Of course you know that you are talking
> to an ex-Brit.

More fantasies about my life. Whatever.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243500

On 5/13/2014 1:52 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/14, 12:34 PM, in article hgu00a3.gf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/14, 11:52 AM, in article hgnt803a.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Silver Slimer <ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:
>>>>>> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> call for "logic" and "reasoning."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
>>>>>> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I only popped in for a moment and thought I'd poke him a bit.
>>>>
>>>> You spewed your idiotic conspiracy nonsense... making yourself look the
>>>> fool. So be it.
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> got too much going on in real life at the moment to stay for long.  No time
>>>>> for a circus. :)
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line: you know your whacked out conspiracy nonsense is completely
>>>> contrary to known facts. And you know it is offensive to those who died and
>>>> those who loved them, but you do not care.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bottom line: you lash out at my opinion on those events because you cannot
>>> provide evidence to support the government propaganda.
>>>  
>>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>>    -----
>>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
>>
>>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>>    not just randomness.
>>
>>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
>>
>>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>>    of reasoning.
>>    -----
>>
>> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
>>

This is snit's communist party propaganda.  Group think.
And it is all a bunch of lies.

> 
> Slate dot com == a bunch of insane faggots, so I guess your latest appeal-
> to-authority logical fallacy just blew up in your face.
> 
>  
> 


-- 
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks
to the Internet, we know this is not true -- Robert Wilensky, 1997

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243504

On 5/13/14, 2:28 PM, in article
C86dnc77cazuE-_OnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com>
wrote:

>>>> Bottom line: you lash out at my opinion on those events because you cannot
>>>> provide evidence to support the government propaganda.
>>>>  
>>>  <http://goo.gl/6LV04> [Slate.com]
>>>    -----
>>>    First of all, why do people believe conspiracy theories?
>>> 
>>>    There are number of factors, but probably one of the most
>>>    important ones in this instance is that, paradoxically, it gives
>>>    people a sense of control. People hate randomness, they dread the
>>>    sort of random occurrences that can destroy their lives, so as a
>>>    mechanism against that dread, it turns out that it¹s much easier
>>>    to believe in a conspiracy. Then you have someone to blame, it¹s
>>>    not just randomness.
>>> 
>>>    What are the psychological forces at play in conspiracy thinking?
>>> 
>>>    Basically what¹s happening in any conspiracy theory is that people
>>>    have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it¹s
>>>    psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A
>>>    conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well
>>>    serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or
>>>    reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you
>>>    ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you¹re
>>>    probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature
>>>    of reasoning.
>>>    -----
>>> 
>>> That is why you believe your conspiracy theories.
>>> 
> 
> This is snit's communist party propaganda.  Group think.
> And it is all a bunch of lies.

To not accept whacked out conspiracy nonsense is now your definition of
"Communism". Wow.

Who else wants to jump in with Owl and GreyCloud and insist they are idiots?


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243461

On 5/13/14, 11:43 AM, in article lktp3u$aoh$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<ndr@slvrlps.c> wrote:

> On 14-05-13 02:40 PM, owl wrote:
> 
>> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following
>> your
>> call for "logic" and "reasoning."
> 
> Why are you even bothering with Snit? Your decision to respond to him is
> doing nothing more than prolonging his stay in this group.

Yeah, you want to chase out anyone who encourages people to be honest and
back their claims. Amazing.

Oh well, the NRA video still stands unrefuted. :)


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243454

On 5/13/14, 11:40 AM, in article gh94.a4tp3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/14, 5:25 AM, in article htu300.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> <http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg>
>>>> 
>>>> Excellent debate... love it!
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, the reality is a count of people does not prove a point... it is
>>>> the evidence that matters. But the evidence is solid and the deniers have
>>>> *nothing*. But like the morons who insist I am wrong because liars in COLA
>>>> claim I am, even without any evidence, many of the same people insist logic
>>>> and science and evidence and data and reasoning are wrong because, um,
>>>> CONSPIRACY CRAP!
>>>> 
>>>> Pretty much.
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, this is for my favorite conspiracy whacko: <http://climate.nasa.gov>.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> So your reasoning is based on an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy.
>>> Nice self-nuke.  LOL!
>> 
>> 1) The media presents a false image that there is a debate in the scientific
>> community. This is a lie and they do a disservice to people to push it.
>> 
>> 2) The facts speak for themselves. Man-made global climate change is very
>> well supported by the facts... from many different disciplines.
>> 
>> 3) There are deniers who have *nothing* to back their views... nothing
>> rational anyway.
>> 
>> 4) On seeing these you whine I have "self-nuked", because you are trolling.
>> 
> 
> Nope.  It was on seeing your appeal-to-authority logical fallacy following
> your call for "logic" and "reasoning."
> 
So you cannot follow what you read. Fine. But your accusation is a false
one. 


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web