3 ms·

This isn't really a counter argument. It's more of a form of rhetoric argument, which is also what you're accusing GP of.

kristopolous 3y ago
I don't think you get it. Let's say you don't speak, say, Chinese. I make a claim that's in stark disagreement to the general consensus, such as "The Chinese claim their country is an island in the Caribbean north of Jamaica" and then I find a large academic text, in Chinese, and claim that I translated a section of it that supports my argument. What are you going to do? Learn Chinese, read the text, then come back in 4 years and tell me I'm wrong? That's what this game is. You can go and find the quote the OP is using, read the context, and, if you take the time, see it doesn't mean what they claim. It's asymmetrical and either not done in good faith or not worth engaging in.
- dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
  Yes, but you haven't proven this is what GP is doing. You have just asserted it is, without providing further evidence beyond > I spent a couple minutes on the article in question and it does not agree with the OP. which is not very convincing. You might very well be right but it doesn't seem logically consistent to dismiss arguments in this way. We have time to debate anyway.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    Go check the OP replies. I'm under no obligation to further convince you of that which is obvious. Thanks for your time. Have a good afternoon
    - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
      Of course, it's an online forum, no need to engage further if you do not wish to. Have a good day.
jfengel 3y ago
We've been over the data so many times that there isn't really anything new to say about it. Insisting on revisiting old arguments is itself a rhetorical tactic that superficially resembles argumentation but is really just a time-waster. One could simply refuse to engage, but that cedes the field to the people using in the easiest talking points. That "field" consists of people whose opinions matter, because they vote, but continue to consider the situation "unproven" despite scientific evidence overwhelmingly on one side. It becomes entirely a matter of persuasion, almost completely divorced from the actual data, since anybody capable of being persuaded by the data already has been.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  It's not that they don't find the empirical evidence persuasive but they can't resolve it with their personal emotional and political alignments. Until you can repackage climate change as some slaphappy singsongy jesus thing or some hayekian libertarian delusion, a large percentage of the population will never get on board. That's because the evidence they're looking for is biblical verses or rational choice theory argument - there's nothing materialist about their epistemology which is why that approach simply does not work.

kristopolous 3y ago

I don't think you get it. Let's say you don't speak, say, Chinese. I make a claim that's in stark disagreement to the general consensus, such as "The Chinese claim their country is an island in the Caribbean north of Jamaica" and then I find a large academic text, in Chinese, and claim that I translated a section of it that supports my argument. What are you going to do? Learn Chinese, read the text, then come back in 4 years and tell me I'm wrong? That's what this game is. You can go and find the quote the OP is using, read the context, and, if you take the time, see it doesn't mean what they claim. It's asymmetrical and either not done in good faith or not worth engaging in.

dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
Yes, but you haven't proven this is what GP is doing. You have just asserted it is, without providing further evidence beyond > I spent a couple minutes on the article in question and it does not agree with the OP. which is not very convincing. You might very well be right but it doesn't seem logically consistent to dismiss arguments in this way. We have time to debate anyway.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  Go check the OP replies. I'm under no obligation to further convince you of that which is obvious. Thanks for your time. Have a good afternoon
  - dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
    Of course, it's an online forum, no need to engage further if you do not wish to. Have a good day.

jfengel 3y ago

We've been over the data so many times that there isn't really anything new to say about it. Insisting on revisiting old arguments is itself a rhetorical tactic that superficially resembles argumentation but is really just a time-waster. One could simply refuse to engage, but that cedes the field to the people using in the easiest talking points. That "field" consists of people whose opinions matter, because they vote, but continue to consider the situation "unproven" despite scientific evidence overwhelmingly on one side. It becomes entirely a matter of persuasion, almost completely divorced from the actual data, since anybody capable of being persuaded by the data already has been.

kristopolous 3y ago
It's not that they don't find the empirical evidence persuasive but they can't resolve it with their personal emotional and political alignments. Until you can repackage climate change as some slaphappy singsongy jesus thing or some hayekian libertarian delusion, a large percentage of the population will never get on board. That's because the evidence they're looking for is biblical verses or rational choice theory argument - there's nothing materialist about their epistemology which is why that approach simply does not work.