Slashdot Mirror

Irrelevant. Public sector workers are subject to abuse, just as private sector workers are. They both need and deserve union representation and collective bargaining.

I am still waiting for a proof , or even an argument supporting it, from you about the impossibility of such a future point.

Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.

I have already pointed out some of the circumstances which would make such a point materialize. There are more.

You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics. So "the circumstances which would make such a point materialize" would be in a land only reachable by the magical faraway tree.

I believe you have no idea what constitutes a logical fallacy. So I'll point you to a site that makes it easy for you to print and/or purchase a board that clarifies all of this for you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

And your logical fallacy is... tu quoque! Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism. Example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of her claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a fallacy earlier on in the conversation. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Yes, you need to buy a book about logic, or take a course.

You failed to articulate a scientific basis for you theorem nor a clear statement on why you believe you are not required to do so. You failed.

I can't teach a moron.

Your local fallacy is ad hominem. Your failures are your own problem.

Tu quoque. Heh heh. Wait a sec... oops!

QED.

Quod erat demonstrandum means "which had to be demonstrated". You failed to state what you were demonstrating, and then failed to actually demonstrate anything (other than your use of the composition/division fallacy).

Disclaimer: The following is not an expert opinion, and almost certainly fouls up technical names involved:

Not arguing that the paleo diet is correct, but I'm not sure 'eating what we evolved to eat' in-and-of-itself is a fallacy by appeal to nature, much less a fallacy at all - our bodies have evolved certain proteins, enzymes, processes, and what-have-you which interlink in specific ways both internally to the digestive system and externally to other bodily systems (notably, by common problems, the cardiac and adipose/energy storage) in order to keep the whole system running, and keeping the whole system running is best done by eating those things in some set of proportions which allows our body to appropriately handle the lifecycle of that resource within the body, ie, 'eating what we evolved to eat'. This does have some further caveats, involving affordability; availability; individuality; and the ability to discover the optimal with precision, but as a general rule, my point that "'eating what we evolved to eat' is not erroneous" should be considered to hold.

I think a better way to understand the error of Paleo-practitioners is to say that they are committing the composition/division fallacy described here on the site you linked, in that they assume that what was good for humans then is good for humans now, despite 150k years of evolution, combined with a possible appeal to nature in assuming that what those humans ate was indeed the best diet for those humans (I do not know enough about the results of research performed in that field, and I have not reviewed argument in that area enough to make a claim either way).

The foods our ancestors consumed don't really exist anymore. No, really, that broccoli you're eating didn't exist back in their times, and the ancestor of the broccoli plant that they ate bears little resemblance to the vegetable today. They didn't eat fatty cuts of meat, they ate super-lean meat when they could catch it. They didn't eat onion and garlic fried in olive (or coconut) oil. If they found carrots, they weren't anywhere near as large, sweet, or nutrient-rich as the ones you buy in a supermarket. Here's an archaeologist talking about it.

So given that we can't eat the diet our ancestors consumed, why discount an enormous range of foods that we have created because some others we have created (through very selective breeding) evoke some "natural" ideal? It's not difficult to argue that eating excessive quantities of deep-fried starchy food is bad for you, but that's not cause to throw out grainy breads as well. You can try arguing that coconut oil is good for you, but there isn't enough research on the subject available to conclusively decide one way or the other yet - or we would've decided already.

The argument that you can eat "what we evolved to eat" is an appeal to nature, essentially. It's not possible to eat what we ate 150,000 years ago without putting a lot of effort into finding some really crappy meals. Paleo is a fad diet which may not be harmful, but its rules are as arbitrary as any others.

I wouldn't call it stupid, but it is a logical fallacy. Given what we knew 10 years ago, it was only logical to point out the fallacy of assuming that everything you said or did was monitored, because there was little/no public evidence of such. That it turned out to be true does not make the past arguments any less fallacious.

I don't know what the law is like where you live but if someone said that here it would be illegal. They would likely be prosecuted for discrimination, and you could sue them personally too.

Correct, and I think it is bad for me as a gay man.

I really don't see how that is worse than just accepting you can't get some jobs because of your sexuality.

There are many jobs I can't get for many reasons that I can do nothing about. Are you going to make any such factors illegal? Is there going to be a committee that determines which factors any particular employer can use in any job category? Or where is this going to end?

I'd make the comparison with being black.

You would, of course! How much better to advance an argument than drag race into it! But since you did, employment non-discrimination laws for blacks were justified on the basis of redressing a legacy of slavery, hardly something that applies to us gay folks. It's not that we didn't used to be treated badly, it's that our parents, by and large, weren't gay.

But what is the same in both situations is the harmful effects such legislation has in the long run. It is exactly because I look at what has happened to blacks that I don't want the same to happen to gay men and women.

I don't think many black people would agree

The argument that because "(group X) wants (thing Y)" therefore "(thing Y) must be good for them" is ludicrous, in particular since the same people usually make arguments of the form "we must regulate/outlaw (something) because people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions themselves". Popularity is not an indicator of beneficence.

Furthermore, what "many people" want is irrelevant to what I want. Many gay folks want ENDA and gay marriage laws, but that doesn't mean you should say "the gays want gay marriage and non-discrimination". Stop labeling people ("black", "gays", "white", etc.) and assigning beliefs to them collectively; start treating them as individuals.

that simply accepting overt discrimination is better than having laws and a society that supports equality for them,

"Forcing people to hire (minorities)" vs "accepting overt discrimination"? That's a false dilemma. You can't end discrimination by outlawing it, any more than you can end drug use, poverty, broken families, or bad grades by outlawing them. Supporting ineffective legislation is not supporting equality.

Furthermore, non-discrimination laws don't "support equality"; what they are saying is that some group is economically so weak and socially so despised that if there weren't laws forcing people to hire us, we'd be starving in the streets. It's not only bad economics, it's insulting. And the motivations for non-minorities to pass such laws are simply to assuage their guilty conscience ("I can't be racist/sexist/homophobic because I voted for...") and make themselves feel superior. Don't tell me that amounts to "supporting equality". If you want to support equality, you have to do better than vote for feel-good laws.

I don't know what the law is like where you live but if someone said that here it would be illegal. They would likely be prosecuted for discrimination, and you could sue them personally too.

Correct, and I think it is bad for me as a gay man.

I really don't see how that is worse than just accepting you can't get some jobs because of your sexuality.

There are many jobs I can't get for many reasons that I can do nothing about. Are you going to make any such factors illegal? Is there going to be a committee that determines which factors any particular employer can use in any job category? Or where is this going to end?

I'd make the comparison with being black.

You would, of course! How much better to advance an argument than drag race into it! But since you did, employment non-discrimination laws for blacks were justified on the basis of redressing a legacy of slavery, hardly something that applies to us gay folks. It's not that we didn't used to be treated badly, it's that our parents, by and large, weren't gay.

But what is the same in both situations is the harmful effects such legislation has in the long run. It is exactly because I look at what has happened to blacks that I don't want the same to happen to gay men and women.

I don't think many black people would agree

The argument that because "(group X) wants (thing Y)" therefore "(thing Y) must be good for them" is ludicrous, in particular since the same people usually make arguments of the form "we must regulate/outlaw (something) because people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions themselves". Popularity is not an indicator of beneficence.

Furthermore, what "many people" want is irrelevant to what I want. Many gay folks want ENDA and gay marriage laws, but that doesn't mean you should say "the gays want gay marriage and non-discrimination". Stop labeling people ("black", "gays", "white", etc.) and assigning beliefs to them collectively; start treating them as individuals.

that simply accepting overt discrimination is better than having laws and a society that supports equality for them,

"Forcing people to hire (minorities)" vs "accepting overt discrimination"? That's a false dilemma. You can't end discrimination by outlawing it, any more than you can end drug use, poverty, broken families, or bad grades by outlawing them. Supporting ineffective legislation is not supporting equality.

Furthermore, non-discrimination laws don't "support equality"; what they are saying is that some group is economically so weak and socially so despised that if there weren't laws forcing people to hire us, we'd be starving in the streets. It's not only bad economics, it's insulting. And the motivations for non-minorities to pass such laws are simply to assuage their guilty conscience ("I can't be racist/sexist/homophobic because I voted for...") and make themselves feel superior. Don't tell me that amounts to "supporting equality". If you want to support equality, you have to do better than vote for feel-good laws.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself a better argument.

Care to explain why you didn't login to an account to say why "privacy violation is complete bullshit"?

Translation: I have no solid argument against what the AC said, so I'll attack the messenger.

The New York court, in contrast, granted on June 11 a warrant that permitted law enforcement to obtain emails and other information from a Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and to permit a search of the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.

They only have permission to search for certain specific categories of evidence, despite having the entire archive, so they wouldn't be able to find them guilty of some minor illegal activity unless it was part of the specific categories the judge authorised.

Have you ever tried to find something in your email account that you know is there but couldn't locate it using any search terms that came to mind, only to find it later along with something completely unrelated? How hard do you think it would be to describe to a Google employee the type of information you want them to search for in (likely) thousands of emails and get a perfect success rate (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that that's the only satisfactory outcome)?

Responding to the opinion by the District of Columbia court that gave the government the option of getting the email host to search the emails, Judge Gorenstein wrote that Google employees would not be able to arrive at the significance of particular emails without having been trained in the substance of the investigation.

"While an agent steeped in the investigation could recognize the significance of particular language in emails, an employee of the email host would be incapable of doing so," he wrote.

It seems to be the same thing, to me. So we have limitations to the type of evidence that may be acquired, and the ability to find that evidence using people with intimate knowledge of the case (as opposed to a corporation's employee).

I don't get the fuss, it's not like you have some right to hide suspected (they got a warrant) illegal activities just because they're recorded in an email archive stored somewhere other than your computer's hard drive. The only problem I have with it could be described as a slippery slope fallacy; that is, maybe the rules will become more relaxed over time as more judges build on this case. But that's somewhat pointless speculation at this point; this judge seems to be quite sane.

Making 32$K per year is not a special advantage.

For sure someone eating every day and having a roof over his head is in a much better position from someone who don't have food or housing. But it is not a special advantage.

Worst, instead of teaching people how to be able to make 32$K a year, we attack those who do in order to make them feel "bad" for getting there.

It is a "let's feel all bad! What, are you doing something that makes you get out of the bad feelings pool? Privileged!!!! And you deny your privilege".

I don't know much about the average slahdotter geek. But if he did something right to get where he is... I might learn it too, instead of claiming he is privileged. (Shifting the burden doesn't help)

IMHO you have fallacy there: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond.

Wasn't intentionally trolling, thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts. I actually debated somebody else on Slashdot who took your argument to another level and said that no company should be allowed to engage in political advocacy. I raised the example of the NYT and asked if he would axe their editorial department (as far as political commentary/advocacy goes), and was shocked that he said he would. Of course, it wasn't fair to paint you with that brush...

... except ... that to me the freedom for corporations to engage in political advocacy flows from the 1st Amendment, so in a sense I do believe that if you chop down that tree, then the NYT loses its legal protection from further government censorship. If people working together as a corporation don't have the right to speak (with a single voice) as that corporation, that's a big problem to me under the 1st Amendment and also on purely philosophical/ethical/civic grounds.

Speaking of logical fallacies : That communism snark is full of Appeal to Emotion and Ad Hominem, with just a touch of Bandwagon. Or maybe communism is just a red herring ...

OK, I admit to a few fallacies; thanks for useful links. :p

As for the rest of that comment, how does lack of ownership make my opinion irrelevant?

There's nothing wrong with you having an opinion, but the owners of a company get to decide what that company does and says.

For instance: I support Net Neutrality, should I quit my job at Comcast? I'm just a cable tech, but the Corporate guys are using the revenue I generate for the company to fight against Net Neutrality.

I certainly hear you on the monopoly thing. When a company gets that big and ubiquitous it enters a gray area where I will not be so quick to a libertarian analysis of their right to do whatever they want within the law.

Truth be told though, I'd much rather attack the problem from the other side, as proposed and discussed way back in TFA. Limit the total revenue that a politician can spend on campaigns, from all sources, and more strictly monitor gifts/bribes. Not only will this solve the root problem of Corpos buying politicians by the bucket, but it will allow the politician to actually do their jobs and legislate, instead of spending their entire terms fundraising to compete with the challenger who has nothing but free time to fundraise.

I think this will change the problem, but most likely not solve it. They will just shift the money to the fringes and advocate indirectly, which they are already doing in many ways. ("See, we're not working for Joe, we're just attacking Mary!")

Anyway, enjoyed the exchange!

While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond. Maybe someone else will read through it and learn something.

Really? Two people working together lose their freedom of speech just because they happen to be working together? You will next suggest shutting down the NYT editorial department, I suppose?

It's funny that you mention strawman later, because that's exactly what this is. You're setting up a false argument on my behalf (that would be the "completely fabricating" part), so that you can beat that straw man down. No where did I ever say that the people working together would lose their freedom of speech. In fact, I said quite the opposite in my previous reply, and will say it again here. The people (that is, the actual human beings) still have all the rights that any individual has. They can still speak freely. Their rights are not abated in any way.

You don't own the company you work for, so this is irrelevant. The rights of the company to freedom of speech should be equivalent to the rights of the owners of the company, since the company does what they say and speaks for them.

Who cares? Private companies are owned and run by people. Those people should decide what the companies do and say. If you want the company to do or say something different, start your own business and spend your own money. What is this, communism? :p

Speaking of logical fallacies : That communism snark is full of Appeal to Emotion and Ad Hominem, with just a touch of Bandwagon. Or maybe communism is just a red herring ...

As for the rest of that comment, how does lack of ownership make my opinion irrelevant? For instance: I support Net Neutrality, should I quit my job at Comcast? I'm just a cable tech, but the Corporate guys are using the revenue I generate for the company to fight against Net Neutrality. Not their own inflated salaries. They're not opening their personal wallets to fight for something they personally believe in (which is fully within their rights) but instead, they're spending the corporate revenue that I help generate to fight on behalf of their personal issues.

And therein lies the real rub. Even if I wanted to ditch these guys and go self employed or work for a competitor, I can't. I'm a cable/wire tech, and Comcast has a lock-tight monopoly in the area. They've already leveraged corporate revenues to establish an illegal business practice (in clear violation of antitrust laws) Now they're layering illegal practices on top of illegal practices on top of illegal practices.

Truth be told though, I'd much rather attack the problem from the other side, as proposed and discussed way back in TFA. Limit the total revenue that a politician can spend on campaigns, from all sources, and more strictly monitor gifts/bribes. Not only will this solve the root problem of Corpos buying politicians by the bucket, but it will allow the politician to actually do their jobs and legislate, instead of spending their entire terms fundraising to compete with the challenger who has nothing but free time to fundraise.

While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond. Maybe someone else will read through it and learn something.

Really? Two people working together lose their freedom of speech just because they happen to be working together? You will next suggest shutting down the NYT editorial department, I suppose?

It's funny that you mention strawman later, because that's exactly what this is. You're setting up a false argument on my behalf (that would be the "completely fabricating" part), so that you can beat that straw man down. No where did I ever say that the people working together would lose their freedom of speech. In fact, I said quite the opposite in my previous reply, and will say it again here. The people (that is, the actual human beings) still have all the rights that any individual has. They can still speak freely. Their rights are not abated in any way.

You don't own the company you work for, so this is irrelevant. The rights of the company to freedom of speech should be equivalent to the rights of the owners of the company, since the company does what they say and speaks for them.

Who cares? Private companies are owned and run by people. Those people should decide what the companies do and say. If you want the company to do or say something different, start your own business and spend your own money. What is this, communism? :p

Speaking of logical fallacies : That communism snark is full of Appeal to Emotion and Ad Hominem, with just a touch of Bandwagon. Or maybe communism is just a red herring ...

As for the rest of that comment, how does lack of ownership make my opinion irrelevant? For instance: I support Net Neutrality, should I quit my job at Comcast? I'm just a cable tech, but the Corporate guys are using the revenue I generate for the company to fight against Net Neutrality. Not their own inflated salaries. They're not opening their personal wallets to fight for something they personally believe in (which is fully within their rights) but instead, they're spending the corporate revenue that I help generate to fight on behalf of their personal issues.

And therein lies the real rub. Even if I wanted to ditch these guys and go self employed or work for a competitor, I can't. I'm a cable/wire tech, and Comcast has a lock-tight monopoly in the area. They've already leveraged corporate revenues to establish an illegal business practice (in clear violation of antitrust laws) Now they're layering illegal practices on top of illegal practices on top of illegal practices.

Truth be told though, I'd much rather attack the problem from the other side, as proposed and discussed way back in TFA. Limit the total revenue that a politician can spend on campaigns, from all sources, and more strictly monitor gifts/bribes. Not only will this solve the root problem of Corpos buying politicians by the bucket, but it will allow the politician to actually do their jobs and legislate, instead of spending their entire terms fundraising to compete with the challenger who has nothing but free time to fundraise.

No, that's pretty much it, at all. Right there. If there's no regulation, they can launch and push their own services and degrade everybody else's services.

regulation or no, all companies seek to turn themselves into monopolies, so as to maximize profits. We regulate to prevent monopoly behavior.

As for your dirty diaper law analogy? What? That made as much sense as a hat on a llama. Actually, less. And then it leaped to regulation limits options is always bad, which does NOT logically follow. You need to read up on your logical fallacies. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

If I get into the interview I almost always get the job.

Almost always? Nothing funnier than an Internet braggart who must equivocate.

First: I brag in real life as well. No need to tack "Internet" onto that statement.
Second: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... My failings do nothing to invalidate my point.
Third: You can only claim I'm equivocating if you only look at that sentence you quoted. Taken as a whole, I give examples of how I might not "get the job" and those are: Different hiring techniques, I fail to make myself familiar to the hiring staff, etc... :-)

Your logical fallacy is: slippery slope.

yes but no true scotsman cares about the rain in Connecticut.

Fallacy much? :P

okay, in your first paragraph you made an ad homimen fallacy ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... ), and a rather aggressive one at that.

then you have a fallacy of causation - i forget what it's called, but essentially you're implying that something is false because some ways that people react to it might not be all that appealing. some unholy combination of post hoc fallacy and appeal to emotion fallacy.

and then you follow that up swiftly with a straw man fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... which is also a non sequitor.

and then i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "you don't have any room to browbeat religious people.", nobody is "browbeating". what may seem like "stern or abusive words" to religious people who play the victim card is simply logic that doesn't agree with their cherised beliefs. and they're pleading "intimidating" to provide an emotionally pursuasive way for them weaseling out of accepting that they've been believing a bunch of ridiculous baloney that's easily - EASILY - discredited. and instead of accepting that they made a mistake and moving on like a rational person would do, they double down on their delusions and get even more stupid.

so forgive me if i'm not all that sympathetic.

okay, in your first paragraph you made an ad homimen fallacy ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... ), and a rather aggressive one at that.

then you have a fallacy of causation - i forget what it's called, but essentially you're implying that something is false because some ways that people react to it might not be all that appealing. some unholy combination of post hoc fallacy and appeal to emotion fallacy.

and then you follow that up swiftly with a straw man fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... which is also a non sequitor.

and then i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "you don't have any room to browbeat religious people.", nobody is "browbeating". what may seem like "stern or abusive words" to religious people who play the victim card is simply logic that doesn't agree with their cherised beliefs. and they're pleading "intimidating" to provide an emotionally pursuasive way for them weaseling out of accepting that they've been believing a bunch of ridiculous baloney that's easily - EASILY - discredited. and instead of accepting that they made a mistake and moving on like a rational person would do, they double down on their delusions and get even more stupid.

so forgive me if i'm not all that sympathetic.

WOW - beg the question much? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Karmashock? Do you realize how often you go to Logical Fallacy: Black or White? It's bad logical thinking. You should look those up... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Against a kid operating a toy? Get some perspective! And never run for office. I have no desire to live in a society that has a stick that far up it's ass!

Your logical fallacy is straw man.

It's not a toy. Most drones are not being used as toys. I am not referring to RC toy planes which can only really be flown with line of sight from the ground. You are attempting to raise the argument to a different level/change the subject by bringing out a fanciful, overly benign supposed example, and suggesting most drones are the same. And I reject that. We are specifically concerned about devices that are quite expensive and can fly at high altitudes or over long distances remotely, and pose numerous potential dangers.

These are not toys any more than a hunting rifle in the hands of a 13 year old is a toy.

By the way, the 13 year old will indeed be subject to prison or fines, if they are found unsupervised or in violation of other hunting laws or firearms regulations, including the licensing requirements.

You need a permit to go off and shoot at deer, so why not, to operate a drone?

Mining the tar sands is happening without the pipeline.

Scale. The lack of a pipeline is a hard limit on how much the tar sands production can ramp up. Lets say that you've won a secret Koch Bros raffle by posting your 5,000th hippie-punching comment, and are now in charge of the tar sands operation in Alberta. Are you going to start mining years beyond your transportation capacity? Store the semi-processed materials that you can't ship for another five years?

Of course not, that would be a waste of capital. The lack of a pipeline is a bottleneck on production. It means northern Alberta will be destroyed at a lower rate, and more time for a non-wingnut government to kick out the Tories and call a halt to the enterprise.

Thr only aregument you put forth that isn't already a reality is eminent domain.

Left out the part where this wont do anything to lower energy costs for Americans.

As for leaks, did you miss all the tanker fires or the town that burnt down from an accident while moving this oil already? That almost makes your pipeline fears a godsend if it makes large populattion areas safer.

Holy false dilemma, Batman! Do you also talk about how getting a powerhouse kick to the balls from someone wearing bunny slippers is awesome, because a powerhouse kick to the balls from someone wearing steel toed shoes would hurt more?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Argue better.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Argue better.

In addition I see that you readily accept that his motivation for saying "I support a move to green technologies" is not for the purposes of mitigating the effects of climate change.

Congratulations, your fallacy is false cause.

I say
1. he supports "green", and
2. "green" for any other purpose than mitigation, is also mitigation

But that does not mean I say anything about his motivation for saying he supports "green". Because I don't know, I don't care, it is irrelevant.

No, I just made this [slashdot.org] post which you misinterpreted(1).

I didn't misinterpret it, or twist it. Read my response again.

You said "The economics are easy to model using some fermi-like methodology, which indicates that any large scale adaption is going to be more expensive that mitigation.", which is stupid because it was in a context which was not opposing mitigation in any way or form. Instead it was advocating mitigation, though in imperfect words.

The imperfect words in question being this statement:

These changes [migrations due to food necessities] happen over centuries. Yes we move / replace infrastructure all the time.

This statement was made in reply to my comments suggesting that in fact, forced migrations of the sort that we can expect to happen to vulnerable people who suffer from food shortages (a problem exacerbated by climate change) is simply not comparable to the western experience of emigration by choice.

There is no way a reasonable person, in that context, would take his comment as advocating for mitigation in order to avoid or minimise adaption. He is asserting that adaptation is easy, thus implying that mitigation is unnecessary.

When backed into a corner he shifted tack and chose a moving goalposts fallacy. Thus, this post. I'll highlight the fallacies in this post:

I didn't say that. I support moving to green technologies now. But that's a very different question then whether if we don't reduce CO2 humans will face mass death a few centuries out because farms are in the wrong place {1}. The UN's argument's that assume no adaption are stupid {2}. People are going to move farms rather than starve billions. Also if you are going to do the price comparison you need to look at NPV. If you assume something like 5% real growth doing something 300 years from now is effectively 2.2m times cheaper than incurring that same expense today. Even if you assume only 2% you are still at 380x.{3} Effectively we have no idea what anything will cost 3 centuries from now. We don't understand their economy well enough to do the math.{4}

{1} special pleading

{2} strawman (the IPCC does NOT "assume no adaption")

{3} Magical thinking

{4} Argument from ignorance

When asked to reconcile his statements in the latter post with earlier comments he was unable to do so, and went away rather than admit error.

Thats all there is to it. Possibly, you read his later remark and didn't immediately see the context from the earlier discussion. A forgiveable error, it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.

1) Misinterpreted means twisted to mean any general agreement with the poster of the GP of that post that applies AFTER that post of mine. That is the real demonstration of strawman by you. I never said I agree with that poster in whatever he says in the future. I have had many disagreements with him in the past, which is an irrelevant fact but probably will help you given you misinterpret simple statements.

The reason I said "So to be clear, you now say you disagree with the OP?" Is to highlight to YOU that he had explicitly said that migration was easy (and mitigation therefore unnecessary) and that the two halves of his assertions were not only unproven but incompatible.

It is also unfortunate, while we are discussing this, that you chose the strawman argument, which is the least likely of the two to represent his genuine view, and then chose a burden of proof fallacy, instead of explaining (in detail) why future climate shifts won't lead to suffering for the worlds vulnerable people (as predicted in AR4/AR5 and other IPCC materials).

Oh for goodness sake. Read up on ad hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c.... You embarrass yourself and others.

You can't disprove a negative.

False

First it has to be proved true, and it never has been. Check for yourself.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof.

Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is the anecdote.

You want to talk about false cause, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, appeal to authority, bandwagon, or the Texas sharpshooter?

You want to talk about false cause, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, appeal to authority, bandwagon, or the Texas sharpshooter?

You want to talk about false cause, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, appeal to authority, bandwagon, or the Texas sharpshooter?

You want to talk about false cause, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, appeal to authority, bandwagon, or the Texas sharpshooter?

You want to talk about false cause, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, appeal to authority, bandwagon, or the Texas sharpshooter?

You want to talk about false cause, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, appeal to authority, bandwagon, or the Texas sharpshooter?

Congratulations: Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity.

If one person tells you that (the world is flat), I'd say don't listen. But when dozens, hundreds, millions tell you? Everyone thinks the world is flat doesn't have to ACTUALLY say the words to you do they?

Better argument, please...
Your fallacy is

Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Ergo you are on the side of Joseph Stalin. Death camps. Force labour. Expansionist military aggression. Civilian infrastructure retooled to produce a state-controlled war machine. Genocide of perceived "lesser races". Rejection of religious freedom. Restriction of travel. Secret police encouraging people to inform on their neighbours. Thought police enforcing the norm through "party membership" as a de facto prerequisite for employment.

Ergo you're a dim-witted demagogue that needs to brush up on his logical fallacies, starting with the False Dichotomy.

Logical Fallacy: burden of proof. "Until someone proves hormesis wrong, I believe its true." Well, I believe that eating unicorn flesh is keeping me young, and until someone proves me wrong, I'm going to believe that too. I'd reeaaaally like to see this properly done study showing that a little bit of radiation is good for you. The old Natural Philosophers used to drink mercury too....

The rest of your post is just one logical fallacy after another, and a giant stereotyping of environmentals, pretty much so you can bash on them. If you were interested in defending nuculear power, you'd do that. Instead you spend your time bashing environmentalists, which leads me to believe that's what you're actually trying to do..... Perhaps I'm wrong. Either way.... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... Look 'em up.

Black and White. No, no one is advocating that the EPA should be able to issue regs based on non science. The EPA already issues regs based on science, and it's quite publicly available. It took me three clicks on their website to find info on their regs, a link for submitting feedback, and links to studies.

But your post is exactly how this bill will be used politically. "Are you advocating that the EPA should be able to issue regulations based on non-science?!!!!!!" You need more exclamation points. They make you look more right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Although it's certainly important to consider multiple viewpoints in a debate, it's wrong to assume that the truth must lie between two extreme positions.

Personally, I think the guy risked everything to expose what is clearly (to most people in the world) a bad and pointless system. He's certainly more deserving of a Nobel peace prize than Obama, who hasn't even shut down Guantanamo Bay yet. The ironing is delicious.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...