When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[dagnabit]

I f you aren't using the same definitions then you are not talking about the same topic.

It goes like this:

1: look a fruitbowl, there are some apples in it, what do you think about apples?
2: Well I see there are some oranges in the bowl, too.
1. right on, but I was trying to start a conversation about apples, what do you think about those apples in the bowl?
2: I can't talk about apples, there's oranges in the bowl, too.
1: yup, but oranges are not apples, and the apples are there in the bowl, in plain sight... what do you think about the apples?
2: Well, oranges are juicy, and those particular oranges look under ripe.
1: what about the apples?
2: I can't believe you are pretending the oranges are not there.
1: I can see the oranges, but I was asking your opinion about apples, so the oranges condition is irrelevant to my original question.
2: MMMmmm, oranges... If we talk about apples it's an apple loving party.
1: nah, you can badmouth the apples if you have cause.
2: MMmm oranges.


I don't want agreement, I just want to talk about the apples that are in the bowl...

got it?

the use of the label of denialisim as a rhetorical tool regardless of the facts regarding provable or correct is a rotten APPLE not an orange..

if you choose to overlook a GREEN APPLE because you dont want to acknowledge their existence.....

thats "denialisim"

 

[dagnabit]

You discuss like a politician, I discuss like a scientist.

politicians concern themselves with "the upper hand" and believe a conversation can be won.

show me a scientist trying to win a conversation or gain "the upper hand" and ill show you a politician.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

the use of the label of denialisim as a rhetorical tool regardless of the facts regarding provable or correct is a rotten APPLE not an orange..

if you choose to overlook a GREEN APPLE because you dont want to acknowledge their existence.....

thats "denialisim"

good thing it is being used to accurately describe a specific thing, and not as a tool (except in the sense that all words are tools of communication)

Now stop being a semantic arguing tool,
and either discuss the topic i've defined,
STFU,
or continue with your trolling of this thread.

i'm done with your foolishness... you obviously have no intention or reasonably participating in the thread.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

politicians concern themselves with "the upper hand" and believe a conversation can be won.

show me a scientist trying to win a conversation or gain "the upper hand" and ill show you a politician.

I never tried to gain the upper hand... I've had it all along by virtue of you having no valid point.

You're the only one talking about a conversation being won, I've not been trying to win anything.

You're not even participating in the conversation, you're trying to start a different one.
you're just a hijacker, and you are being an asshole about it.

 

[dagnabit]

I never tried to gain the upper hand... I've had it all along by virtue of you having no valid point.

You're the only one talking about a conversation being won, I've not been trying to win anything.

cool..i musta misunderstood...

enjoy your non conversation about not really "denialisim"..

LMAO

just remember the man who coined the term agrees with me about the dichotomy of uses "regardless of facts."

 

[Kalicokitty]

On the topic of science being denied, anyone see Glen beck and sarah palins big ass rally going on today?
Going to bring America back to god.
That's great, so much for science and knowledge

 

[dagnabit]

and you are being an asshole.

tell you what...

look back and see which of us has been an insulting asshole in EVERY post.

you'll notice who's the "asshole"

what color was the rep you gave me? and how did i reply?

who is the asshole?

who called who an asshole?..



like i said ourhearts are in different places..i love you. how do you feel?
do you want to post what you wrote to me with your -rep?

yes im an asshole
im sorry

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

cool..i musta misunderstood...

enjoy your non conversation about not really "denialisim"..

LMAO

just remember the man who coined the term agrees with me about the dichotomy of uses "regardless of facts."

Yay!!! you finally got it... I'm astounded!!

The conversation is NOT REALLY about denialism.

The conversation is REALLY about scientific denialism, which is a much more specific thing, well defined in the thread.

 

[dagnabit]

Yay!!! you finally got it... I'm astounded!!

The conversation is NOT REALLY about denialism.

The conversation is REALLY about scientific denialism, which is a much more specific thing, well defined in the thread.

ohhh im sorry again....

i confused you..
my misunderstanding stemmed from you telling me how you had the upper hand then telling me having the upper hand did not matter to you..
i can see how that went past you

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

tell you what...

look back and see which of us has been an insulting asshole in EVERY post.

you'll notice who's the "asshole"

what color was the rep you gave me? and how did i reply?

who is the asshole?

who called who an asshole?..



like i said ourhearts are in different places..i love you. how do you feel?
do you want to post what you wrote to me with your -rep?

yes im an asshole
im sorry

I meant what I said,
you started this exchange with a smart ass post acting like I did not know the definition of peril, when I clearly did and only wanted to know what the imagined peril was, and followed it up with an insult. You started this exchange being an asshole, and have been nothing but a troll pissed off about getting a neg rep for his trolling.

I love you too, but you were still being an asshole.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

my misunderstanding stemmed from you telling me how you had the upper hand then telling me having the upper hand did not matter to you..

edit:
Sorry I misread your rant,

Having a thing does not mean you care about having it or sought it out...

 

[dagnabit]

Yay!!! you finally got it... I'm astounded!!

The conversation is NOT REALLY about denialism.

The conversation is REALLY about scientific denialism, which is a much more specific thing, well defined in the thread.

but your right you are trying to have a discussion about a term you made up..

what confuses the reader is your posting of a paper about denialisim and dont want to discuss the topic of the paper...

sorry i misunderstood.

what about your made up concept would you like to discuss?

it sucks....
i think we can all agree in the very limited sense you present your made up term.



good talk

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

but your right you are trying to have a discussion about a term you made up..

and defined clearly.

and you've refused to participate in it, trolling it instead.




of course... again you are wrong. I am not the coiner of 'scientific denialism'

 

[dagnabit]

and defined clearly.

and you've refused to participate in it, trolling it instead.

what "participation"

here ill show you..



rape and murder is wrong...

discuss?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

what "participation"

here ill show you..



rape and murder is wrong...

discuss?

Not always.
What if I murder a man who was planning to blow up a shopping mall?
What If the child born as the product of rape grows up to solve world hunger and brings peace and prosperity to the world?


See how easy that is...
I did not try to re-define murder to include war or execution
I did not quibble about the legalities surrounding rape and consent...

But I did contribute a justifiable argument.

 

[dagnabit]

Not always.

LMAO

great have fun with that...



why i dont converse with fundies/cultists of any ilk...

 

[dagnabit]

Not always.
What if I murder a man who was planning to blow up a shopping mall?
What If the child born as the product of rape grows up to solve world hunger and brings peace and prosperity to the world?

i said rape and murder is wrong not

are wrong

try again

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

i said rape and murder is wrong not

are wrong

try again

OK...

After the peace bringing child was born, the woman planned to blow up a mall.

this is fun.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

LMAO

great have fun with that...



why i dont converse with fundies/cultists of any ilk...

I obviously don't have to believe a thing to use it as a valid example to make a point.

 

[dagnabit]

OK...

After the peace bringing child was born, the woman planned to blow up a mall.

this is fun.

how is the child born of the raped and murdered woman exactly?

fun?

trying to find a way for rape and murder to be ok?

yup fundies suk