• @afraid_of_zombies
    link
    141 year ago

    These are rhetoric tricks. Refusing to defend your viewpoint and trying to use carrot+stick.

    Why not answer my question? It will be easier than bring out stuff that would have been caught that easily.

      • @afraid_of_zombies
        link
        71 year ago

        ’s like asserting that because I can’t give the scientific explanation for why the grass is green, it must not be, while I am pointing at the grass on the ground and showing you its color.

        Your analogy is false. We have as much data as we want that grass is green. We have no data about the future since it hasn’t happened yet. To predict the future to any degree we have to look at trends of the past and apply the scientific method to it.

        Again, it’s up to you to be willing to accept the reality in front of you

        Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.

        I can only lead you to water.

        Ok your Cassandra/Jeremiah routine is wearing thin.

        Choose wisely. Your family depends on it.

        Bifurcation, and FUD.

        • @Intralexical
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.

          Tautology. Circular reasoning, if you will.

      • @Intralexical
        link
        English
        -11 year ago

        …Right. So, based entirely on faith, with nothing to substantiate it, and with a healthy dose of some weird Messianic complex.

        Also, as another commenter pointed out, we actually have surprisingly robust data affirming that yes, indeed, the spectral albedo of grass does show peaks in the 530-550nm range correlating to M-type cone photoreceptor cells­— I.E., Is green. Civil war isn’t the sort of thing you’re going to be able to pass off as self-evident.