02-17-2006, 06:52 PM
Sir O would be rolling over in his grave if he saw you debating like this.
You dismiss anything that disagrees with you as "hack" science. Well prove it. Why is it hack science? Because of who performed it, or because of who funded it? And if that's the case, then who performed/funded the ones you agree with?
I don't even have any scientific fact to sway me one way or the other, but it's just laughably moronic how you immediately dismiss any information that counters your opinion as flawed because the right wing must have manufactured it. This is like the 10th thread in 3 days about politics and you have done the same thing in every one.
You offer no facts, assume that "everyone should know" what you are talking about, and then just brush aside anything that challenges you as poppycock.
If you haven't noticed yet, I am challenging you on every opinion you put forth, not because I disagree with you, but because you simply cannot put forward a coherent, philosophically consistent argument. It's insanely easy to punch holes in anything you put forth, no matter how right you are, just because you can't structure your arguments effectively.
You dismiss anything that disagrees with you as "hack" science. Well prove it. Why is it hack science? Because of who performed it, or because of who funded it? And if that's the case, then who performed/funded the ones you agree with?
I don't even have any scientific fact to sway me one way or the other, but it's just laughably moronic how you immediately dismiss any information that counters your opinion as flawed because the right wing must have manufactured it. This is like the 10th thread in 3 days about politics and you have done the same thing in every one.
You offer no facts, assume that "everyone should know" what you are talking about, and then just brush aside anything that challenges you as poppycock.
If you haven't noticed yet, I am challenging you on every opinion you put forth, not because I disagree with you, but because you simply cannot put forward a coherent, philosophically consistent argument. It's insanely easy to punch holes in anything you put forth, no matter how right you are, just because you can't structure your arguments effectively.