blueblood Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 The debate between Riverwind vs Waldo/Wyly concerning climate change has been very informative, and entertaining. I am curious to see of all the posters, which side of the fence do you sit on after reading their arguments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Neither. Waldo and Wyly seem to think the world is going to end and Riverwind comes off as a conspiracy theorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 I protest! There should be a third option in this poll. Please mark my vote for ● Homer Simpson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Nope, Riverwind's arguments are typical for ANTI-conspiracy. It's a voice of a common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Nope, Riverwind's arguments are typical for ANTI-conspiracy. It's a voice of a common sense. The kind of "common sense" found only in a mental hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 That all depends on your prospective. There's some merit to each position...note the use of the word some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 Nope, Riverwind's arguments are typical for ANTI-conspiracy. It's a voice of a common sense. I agree. Also, I've never been able to have confidence in someone who debates in what frankly is a rude, ad hominem manner. A sneering, condescending tone implies that the author is trying to demean his opponent in an emotional manner and cow him into submission. Either that or make the entire experience so distasteful for him that he just quits the field. Then the rude protagonist will take this as a win for his side, counting his emotional techniques as equally valid to an intellectual argument! It's just a cheap trick and no one should waste their time with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 A sneering, condescending tone implies that the author is trying to demean his opponent in an emotional manner and cow him into submission. Bill I normally agree with most of your posts but if we took the emotion out of everything then there wouldn't be anything worth discussing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 I agree. Also, I've never been able to have confidence in someone who debates in what frankly is a rude, ad hominem manner. A sneering, condescending tone implies that the author is trying to demean his opponent in an emotional manner and cow him into submission. Either that or make the entire experience so distasteful for him that he just quits the field. Then the rude protagonist will take this as a win for his side, counting his emotional techniques as equally valid to an intellectual argument! It's just a cheap trick and no one should waste their time with it! HOLY CRAP BILL!!!!!!! Which sitting Prime Minister did you just describe to a T???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 HOLY CRAP BILL!!!!!!! Which sitting Prime Minister did you just describe to a T???? Iggy ain't PM yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 21, 2009 Report Share Posted December 21, 2009 HOLY CRAP BILL!!!!!!! Which sitting Prime Minister did you just describe to a T???? Actually, there's a better example with a poster in this very thread! And as an aside to Moonbox, there's noting wrong with passion in an argument but many posters routinely cross the line into incivility. Just go back and read some of the native issues threads or the climate change debate. I rarely even read such threads anymore and only occasionally participate, simply because I find the endless ad hominem attacks to be boring! You don't learn anything new when posts become so predictable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 The debate between Riverwind vs Waldo/Wyly concerning climate change has been very informative, and entertaining. I am curious to see of all the posters, which side of the fence do you sit on after reading their arguments? whaaaaa! by the by, could you be any more (deliberately?) vague... what's the "argument" your "poll" purports to question? And... in that context, what's the positional argument from side A versus the positional argument from side B? You know... the apparently (to you) inconsequential points that form the premise of your poll? It's unfortunate you didn't shape a poll with multiple questions; one that could help realize the luddite level of MLW (is anonymity an optional choice for MLW polls? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 I agree. Also, I've never been able to have confidence in someone who debates in what frankly is a rude, ad hominem manner. A sneering, condescending tone implies that the author is trying to demean his opponent in an emotional manner and cow him into submission. Either that or make the entire experience so distasteful for him that he just quits the field. Then the rude protagonist will take this as a win for his side, counting his emotional techniques as equally valid to an intellectual argument! It's just a cheap trick and no one should waste their time with it! certainly... we need more thin skinned MLW members, particularly the sanctimonious kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 whaaaaa! by the by, could you be any more (deliberately?) vague... what's the "argument" your "poll" purports to question? And... in that context, what's the positional argument from side A versus the positional argument from side B? You know... the apparently (to you) inconsequential points that form the premise of your poll? It's unfortunate you didn't shape a poll with multiple questions; one that could help realize the luddite level of MLW (is anonymity an optional choice for MLW polls? ) The nice thing about democracy is that ultimatly decides who wins and who loses. Although a majority of Canadians want something done about Global Warming, which has resulted in all parties taking note of it; the vast majority of MLW posters think that way Riverwind presents his arguments is far superior and hell he may very well be right. In other words, for somebody saying he "owned" somebody in an argument, I wanted to see if in fact you actually did. Survey says you lost. Deal with it Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 I agree. Also, I've never been able to have confidence in someone who debates in what frankly is a rude, ad hominem manner. A sneering, condescending tone implies that the author is trying to demean his opponent in an emotional manner and cow him into submission. Either that or make the entire experience so distasteful for him that he just quits the field. Then the rude protagonist will take this as a win for his side, counting his emotional techniques as equally valid to an intellectual argument! It's just a cheap trick and no one should waste their time with it! Bingo....that's our Waldo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Bingo....that's our Waldo. I agree. But from the start the way the two debate has been quite different. Yes, both present cites. But Waldo and his sidekick present their cites without much thought to them. They sound like a priest presenting the holy scripture as self-evident and incontrovertible, requiring no thought. Riverwind puts much more thought and explanation into his positions and makes a lot more sense. Add in all the arrogant jeering and sneering and ridiculing coming from WW and you instinctively dislike them anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 The nice thing about democracy is that ultimatly decides who wins and who loses. Although a majority of Canadians want something done about Global Warming, which has resulted in all parties taking note of it; the vast majority of MLW posters think that way Riverwind presents his arguments is far superior and hell he may very well be right. In other words, for somebody saying he "owned" somebody in an argument, I wanted to see if in fact you actually did. Survey says you lost. Deal with it Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! a contest! What was the argument, precisely? Or are you weak-kneed charlatans afraid to fully qualify/quantify your skepticism/denial? Interesting... I can't seem to recall you, personally, contributing anything to champion your personal denial - other than the rubbin you took with your game/set/match/well played bluster-bluss... obviously, you're still smartin over that! Besides, your simpleton poll matters diddly... but really, c'mon... it's no stretch to count up the tally of those wyly and I have left burnt and smoldering at the curbside! If you'd have asked either of us to name your usual cast of characters, we could have saved you a poll what was the argument... and what were the positions of side A versus side B? Details... details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Bingo....that's our Waldo. hey Simple... can you provide a trend for this poll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 I agree. But from the start the way the two debate has been quite different. Yes, both present cites. But Waldo and his sidekick present their cites without much thought to them. They sound like a priest presenting the holy scripture as self-evident and incontrovertible, requiring no thought. Riverwind puts much more thought and explanation into his positions and makes a lot more sense. Add in all the arrogant jeering and sneering and ridiculing coming from WW and you instinctively dislike them anyway. yes, quite a difference. Wyly and I have this unnerving effect on y'all by citing from actual scientists/science/publications - you certainly take comfort in citations from skeptic "blog pretend scientists". Argus, are you saying you don't like me/us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 a contest! What was the argument, precisely? Or are you weak-kneed charlatans afraid to fully qualify/quantify your skepticism/denial? Interesting... I can't seem to recall you, personally, contributing anything to champion your personal denial - other than the rubbin you took with your game/set/match/well played bluster-bluss... obviously, you're still smartin over that! Besides, your simpleton poll matters diddly... but really, c'mon... it's no stretch to count up the tally of those wyly and I have left burnt and smoldering at the curbside! If you'd have asked either of us to name your usual cast of characters, we could have saved you a poll what was the argument... and what were the positions of side A versus side B? Details... details. That's funny because the poll as of now scores 14-3. I'd say its you guys that have been burned, and there's the proof. Where's your proof that you "burned" Riverwind? There's enough left wing supporters on MLW to balance out the right wing ones, so I'd say MLW is a fair representative sample. Numbers are a bitch aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 That's funny because the poll as of now scores 14-3. I'd say its you guys that have been burned, and there's the proof. Where's your proof that you "burned" Riverwind? There's enough left wing supporters on MLW to balance out the right wing ones, so I'd say MLW is a fair representative sample. Numbers are a bitch aren't they? So let's be perfectly clear: are you saying that the poll results indicate who is right and who is wrong? Because if so, I have some Creationism and some Saddam-was-behind-9/11 to sell you. Dirt cheap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) So let's be perfectly clear: are you saying that the poll results indicate who is right and who is wrong? Because if so, I have some Creationism and some Saddam-was-behind-9/11 to sell you. Dirt cheap! No, the poll is who is more convincing. Waldo claims to have "owned" people with his arguments, I thought he was full of crap and intended to prove it. Well, the results speak for themselves. And the way that you are presenting creationism and 9/11 tr00ther stuff, ruins your credibility and nobody (including me) buys your argument. For a time the catholic church was in charge of scientific thought, and the majority of people bought into it. Then along came copernicus and galileo, and the majority of people buy what their selling. This is due to how they present their message. The catholic church jailed people to get its point across, galileo used arguments. Guess what message prevailed? Edited December 22, 2009 by blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 So let's be perfectly clear: are you saying that the poll results indicate who is right and who is wrong? Because if so, I have some Creationism and some Saddam-was-behind-9/11 to sell you. Dirt cheap! You seem to be too busy selling your own religion do you think you would have time to explain creationism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 Iggy ain't PM yet. So he must be talking about the Current PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 22, 2009 Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) You seem to be too busy selling your own religion do you think you would have time to explain creationism. For someone "selling my own religion," you'd think I'd have posted lots of information on this topic. Strangely, I haven't, so your idea here falls flat. Oh...do I have time to explain Creationism? sure! Creationism is at bottom the belief that being a drooling knuckledragger is a wisdom "beyond science." Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.