Conquer Club

riskllama wrote:ha! U have to change your avatar, dontcha?

mrswdk wrote:With all your lame busy body justifications for interfering in the way other people live their lives.

1. Please cite the way I interfere in other people's lives
2. Please cite my "lame excuses"
3. Please present an argument for how either implies I have a connection to national socialism

mrswdk wrote:With all your lame busy body justifications for interfering in the way other people live their lives.

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:With all your lame busy body justifications for interfering in the way other people live their lives.

1. Please cite the way I interfere in other people's lives
2. Please cite my "lame excuses"
3. Please present an argument for how either implies I have a connection to national socialism

Failure to provide answers to the above will bring about a motion to dismiss your argument out of hand.

DaGip wrote:

riskllama wrote:ha! U have to change your avatar, dontcha?

No. It's clearly a Buddha and mrswdk is clearly a worshiper of said deity. The fascist that I am says his freedom of religion out weighs the proposed significance of the stupid little symbol on Buddha's chest.

mrswdk wrote:

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:With all your lame busy body justifications for interfering in the way other people live their lives.

1. Please cite the way I interfere in other people's lives
2. Please cite my "lame excuses"
3. Please present an argument for how either implies I have a connection to national socialism

Failure to provide answers to the above will bring about a motion to dismiss your argument out of hand.

Godwin's Law, your post is invalid.

tzor wrote:Godwin's law?

tzor wrote:national socialism

show

wikipedia wrote:Godwin's Law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

wikipedia wrote:There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

wikipedia wrote:Although falling foul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[10]

Greenwald wrote:Responding to the neocon objections to my post on the universality of war-justifying propaganda, Kevin Drum writes that it’s “time to repeal Godwin’s Law” — at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes — labeling it an “an endlessly tiresome way of feigning moral indignation.” Kevin adds: ”WWII analogies are extremely useful because they’re familiar to almost everyone.” I agree: the very notion that a major 20th Century event like German aggression is off-limits in political discussions is both arbitrary and anti-intellectual in the extreme. There simply are instances where such comparisons uniquely illuminate important truths: recall, for example, Andrew Sullivan’s consequential discovery of the stark similarities between the Bush/Cheney and Gestapo “enhanced interrogation” documents, both in terms of approved tactics and “justifications.” To demand that German crimes be treated as sacred and unmentionable is to deprive our discourse of critical truths.

Metsfanmax wrote:It sounds like you're just as unable to detect shades of grey as Phatscotty is.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:It sounds like you're just as unable to detect shades of grey as Phatscotty is.

I assume this stems from your mistake in assuming that if a country's average temperature didn't drop that it must certainly have risen.... whence I reminded you in your fanatical fervor it was possible that an average temperature may also remain unchanged from last year

/ wrote:Mets, I gotta say, that actually does sound pretty exclusionary and fascist. I suppose next you're going to say only doctors should practice medicine, and only rocket scientists should build and launch rockets.
Live and let live, man.

Metsfanmax wrote:

/ wrote:Mets, I gotta say, that actually does sound pretty exclusionary and fascist. I suppose next you're going to say only doctors should practice medicine, and only rocket scientists should build and launch rockets.
Live and let live, man.

I don't have an objection to letting Phatscotty try his hand on the free market for selling his scientific ideas. I'm pretty sure we'll be fine.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:It sounds like you're just as unable to detect shades of grey as Phatscotty is.

I assume this stems from your mistake in assuming that if a country's average temperature didn't drop that it must certainly have risen.... whence I reminded you in your fanatical fervor it was possible that an average temperature may also remain unchanged from last year

I didn't bother correcting you because I didn't see the point. But, since you insist, no. Temperature is a real quantity and so the temperature is not going to be exactly the same two years in a row. It is possible that the difference between the two temperatures could be within the measurement errors, in which case we could not say with certainty what the temperature change was, but that is not the same as saying the temperature didn't change.

Phatscotty, you're not a scientist. I don't really care whether you listen to us or not on the issue of global warming... but please don't for one second think that you understand something that we don't, because we're smarter than you and have spent a hell of a lot more time thinking about it. We quite literally don't care about your opinion on the issue.

Have a good one.