FYI,
I’m once again going to state my reason for the bulk of my participation in this thread.
Prerequisites:
1. An understanding of logical and formal fallacies
(a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which has a valid logical form, but is false due to one or more of its premises being false.)References:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/welcome.htm
http://www.virtuescience.com/logicalfallacies.html
2. Reading comprehension is called for (the complex cognitive process involving the intentional interaction between reader and text to extract meaning.)Armed with the above, you’ll understand the points I make below, and throughout this thread. Without both of the above, you will miss the point.
This time I’ll leave names out, I’ll use letters instead:
F
and others post peer reviewed scientific citations that illuminate the reasons why Global Warming Hysteria is an accurate description of the current state.A
replies to F’s post using ad hominem fallacies, guilt by association, appeal to force, prejudicial language, appeal to popularity, hasty generalization, fallacy of exclusion, causal fallacies, straw man, fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of limited scope and limited depth, and other fallacies on the scientific sources of the citations.B
does not enter the debate, but rather, points out where A has committed the above logical fallacies, as well as pointing out the demonstrable fact that A is full of hot air.H
joins the fray, demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension, ignorant of the logical fallacies committed by A, and clouds the issue.A
repeats his logically flawed "debate" style with F, and, in addition, assails B. One can only come to the conclusion that either A is so narcissistic that (i) A will not admit error and learn from mistakes, (ii) A actually does not understand what fallacies are and why they need to be avoided in debate, (iii) A does not possess the mental faculties to understand the citations, (iv) A is still heavily indoctrinated in the JW cult mindset, or (v) some or all of the previous conclusionsIt should be crystal clear that if B points out that A committed logical fallacies in his "debate", this is not to be construed as an "ad hominem" attack on A. Otherwise, no one could ever criticize a "debater" for using logical fallcies.
BA- Comprehends what he reads, understands why fallacious arguments don’t equate to real debate, call’s ‘em as he sees ‘em.
PS- If you don’t get it now, you (probably) never will.