"Research"

submitted by FediNetizen from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

What argument?

How about you address mine?

Instead you’re calling for backup like a massive faggot.

Also, there’s no ad hominem in my comment.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Instead you’re calling for backup like a massive faggot.

No, I told reefer he doesn't understand what an ad hominem was in a different comment thread. I'm tagging him in this one to show him what that actually looks like, not asking him for input. And yes, your comment is an ad hominem. You called me a sheep and didn't address the actual argument. Read my fucking comment before responding next time, and stop to think about what you're actually saying.

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I laid out my point. Are you still not understanding this? It’s not an ad hominem.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I love how you've just completely shut down at this point. I gave you a simple set of assertions, and you couldn't even point out your grievance. Instead your "solution" was to call me a sheep and insist that this was a valid response. You can't even explain what you think the problem with the theory of AGW is, nor have you provided an alternative explanation for the warming that passes the sniff test. You know what a "sheep" actually is? Someone that just blindly follows without being able to explain why.

Maybe if I kept prodding you for an answer you'll eventually shoot some objection at me that you just pulled off a web article you read a few minutes ago, and that I've already torn apart when debating this issue with other AGW deniers, but we both know the response will never get through to you anyways. I guess the source of this trend of rising temperatures and rising sea levels will just remain a mystery, huh?

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You have no idea what we're even arguing.

You don't follow science, you listen to people on the television. That's the point. That's the original point in the top comment. You're going off on nonsense, claiming I'm a climate change denier, doing literally what I said people like you do in the top comment...

I didn't use an ad hominem, I clarified my argument.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

And I've told you that you're wrong. "You've never read a paper in your life" is just wishful thinking with no factual basis. "You don't follow science, you listen to people on the television" is wishful thinking with no factual basis.

You have this stupid caricature in your head about what the people that disagree with you must be like, and it's wrong. You're trying to frame me as some NPC, yet you're the one that switches to character attacks when I ask for specifics. Who is the one that just blindly parrots what the talking heads tell them, when you can't even explain your position when asked?

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The argument is effectively that NPCs exist. You don't even know what we're arguing, you're just nerd-raging because people ripped on your post.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The argument is effectively that NPCs exist.

No, your statement was that I, specifically, am some sheep that just repeats "climate change is real" without understanding any of the actual science because someone on TV told me to. Now you're trying to walk it back.

You don't even know what we're arguing

Maybe you don't. You claimed that if you weren't "on Thunberg's level" with regards to AGW that you were called a denier. I sniffed that out as another actual denier, which you confirmed. Then I asked you to explain what specific part of the AGW theory you think isn't well established by science. I had the intention of explaining how we know all those things are true, and linking you to IPCC resources to support the claims, but instead of answering you responded by telling me I was an idiot that's never read a paper in my life. I called this out as an ad hominem, and you for some inexplicable reason keep insisting that it isn't.

The argument is whether AGW theory is well-supported by science, and also whether calling me a sheep instead of explaining what you think the issues with AGW theory is an ad hominem (hint: it is).

you're just nerd-raging because people ripped on your post

I'm actually rather smug about the the fact that I made a good post making fun of anti-vaxxers, to which a bunch of butthurt anti-vaxxers responded negatively. I tend to look down on anti-science quacks in general, and getting them riled up is amusing.

[–]madcow-5 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No, your statement was that I, specifically, am some sheep that just repeats

I don't know or give a shit who you are. You're just some nerd spazzing out.

You've gone completely off the rails of the original discussion.

I'm actually rather smug

Also, this is the faggiest shit I've ever read, and that's just from skimming this wall of autism.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't know or give a shit who you are. You're just some nerd spazzing out.

No, I'm the guy that stumped you by just asking some basic questions, your inability of which to answer is typical of an AGW denier, by the way. I've had plenty of these conversation, most of you can't really elaborate, and when you do, you usually say something retarded and easily debunkable like that the sun's output is increasing, or that it's volcanoes or some shit. Either way, it's indicative that you've never made much of a good-faith effort to understand the science.

First I was a sheep, now I'm a faggot sperg apparently. As for you, I'm still on the same diagnosis I had at the beginning of this conversation: a moron that doesn't understand any of the stuff he's talking about.