It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
. Okay, so what I hear is that you've formed an opinion based upon a repeated conversation here on ATS.
I call them deniers because they are. They are not sceptics. They are not contrarians. They are dishonest deniers. I've followed this topic sufficiently to see these people be blatently and clearly called on their lies, and to then see them spreading the same information without even a blush.
Good. You are right, of course. Conservatives generally want LESS government.
I don't call them conservatives, because they are generally not.
Really? There is data? I would guess t he same. This thread really isn't about scientific acceptance or denial, though.
For example, I think the data that shows more educated republicans are more likely to not accept the science than those with lower levels of education is very, very interesting.
I understand. It can be frustrating as hell to be assailed by people who have a personal agenda RATHER THAN one that addresses the issues.
It's mainly just been BAC - who was peeved when we discussed evolution, so thought he'd troll me here - and Animal, who has followed my posts. Most of my topics don't get big replies - I'm a bit too mundane to post exaggerated and fantastical topics. And now a group who want to derail in their current efforts to run me off the forum like some clown posse headed by Sheriff Bozo.
Originally posted by argentus
with a label is a classic example of a straw man fallacy. Now, we see that referenced here quite a bit, and perhaps people don't completely understand what it means. You do. I know it.
So I have to reiterate..... what is your goal? Using labels and broad brush strokes is akin to a polarizing statement, which I think is pretty much the antithesis of a balanced and informational discussion.
You want people to agree with you as to whom is the enemy? I can't say I disagree much, for what that's worth, however if your goal was to accomplish some insight and/or beneficial discussion, you missed the mark from the beginning. I might infer that you are a bovine-loving marsupial and craft a belief system that cubbyholed you into it. That would be a farce, and equally applicable as labelling a whole segment of people as YOU see them.
It's a lie for any of us to infer that our opinions represent an absolute truth.
Okay, so what I hear is that you've formed an opinion based upon a repeated conversation here on ATS.
So tell me, what color am I pAIanted in your universe?
Good. You are right, of course. Conservatives generally want LESS government.
Really? There is data? I would guess t he same. This thread really isn't about scientific acceptance or denial, though.
I understand. It can be frustrating as hell to be assailed by people who have a personal agenda RATHER THAN one that addresses the issues.
"Poking" does good sometimes, I think, as long as it is goal-oriented and not personal; the latter seems counterproductive [you bovine-loving marsupial, you].
Cheers
Originally posted by argentus
By the way, I've been informed that you are not actually a marsupial at all, bovine-loving or otherwise. Therefore I withdraw MY strawman, although it might've been fun to debate, given that strawman's cousin is sometimes causing a situation in which one must try to disprove a negative [characterization].
You and I aren't that far apart -- if at all -- politically. Your labels make you sound [to me] like you just wanted to rant and perhaps set a bait trap. Again, I think that's the opposite of discussion.
I learned something. Always a plus.
Cheers
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
But as a layman, and just a man, I have to be wary of anything global warming proponents have to say after reading this quote from the Club Of Rome, which is the first mention of global warming, as far as I can tell:
So I suppose us 'deniers' or skeptics are enemy combatants?