Motifake
politics
epic fail
military funny
stupid human
ufo
MAD
politifake

Latest comments




PREV PAGE

RonaldReagan - Apr 4, 2015 9:17pm, #74595

Didn't think they could make the man any uglier

RonaldReagan - Apr 4, 2015 9:16pm, #74594

Ain't this the truth

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:56pm, #74593

In case you didn't know what a false an'alogy is, mate ;-) http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_a***ogy Have a good night, mate! Hope you enjoy this most beautiful day. I am! :-D Cheers =)

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:53pm, #74592

You are comparing an online debate to"bank robbery?" Hmm..a false a***ogy fallacy.For someone who pretends he's an authority on fallacies,that's a fallacy even a high school debater knows enough NOT to do. Maybe this is the perfect note to end this on ;-)

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:29pm, #74591

It would be like saying that customers can properly withdrawal money from banks and that proves that banks do not get robbed. A proper means doesn't disprove possible improper means.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:27pm, #74590

Stereotyping me doesn't change the facts. The NOAA does adjust number. Saying that you proved the NOAA has done nothing wrong requires more evidence than you provided, or they could intentionally adjust improperly and still be proper at the same time.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:19pm, #74589

P.S. You wrote this [#74587] in the middle of my response. For proper continuity read #74586 and #74588 together in between licking your wounds. That's all I got. Have a good one, mate! :-) Cheers

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:17pm, #74588

And I think Rebecca's point was that you only have your own obtuseness to blame if we start ignoring you.And maybe we should, you're phoniness is getting old :-/ You are denier who is being dishonest about it - intentional or otherwise.Nuff said.Cheers =)

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:15pm, #74587

Nope, as if what you are saying was valid them no one could even be proved wrong as evidence would have to be presented before it can exist. And if it doesn't exist then it cannot be shown. Thus your illicit negative is shown to be improper.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:13pm, #74586

OK. enough for one day. Off to bike with some friends. We are just going in circles here anyways, mate. There is only so many ways I can show you are wrong before it's going in circles.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:12pm, #74585

So you once again refer to what you feel I think ion order to dodge the point and again return to the Strawman of saying I said something other that the proved statement that they NOAA adjusted numbers. Finally you go back to "prove me wrong".

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:11pm, #74584

Nah, if I make the argument that God or Santa Claus doesn't exist because there is no evidence of him and you say, "prove he doesn't exist", that doesn't mean that if don't do that, I'm wrong or you're right. Hence, your appeal to ignorance.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:09pm, #74583

I don't have to prove anything. You started this saying the NOAA was fixing the numbers and you used a source to back it up. I exposed your failure to do so. I didn't say you have to agree with me. The rest are sour gra**s from you on that.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:08pm, #74582

Nope, you stated that you proved they did nothing wrong. It's that illicit negative that you keep using the the place of actual proof to switch the burden of proof and use your own Appeal to Ignorance.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:06pm, #74581

So as we can see your "false equivalency fallacy" is dodging that you cannot prove the claim you made, so you reach a illicit negative (that's a fallacy) and attack me for pointing it out.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:05pm, #74580

Ah, your "straw man STRAWMAN" again. I don't have to prove false accusations about the NOAA are wrong. You have to prove they are right - otherwise, you are doing the appeal to ignorance fallacy AGAIN.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:03pm, #74579

Ah, but not when it comes to my opinions though. And you seem only concerned with that as far as this debate is concerned. In that realm, I'm the best judge of what I think.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:03pm, #74578

Nope sorry you just mode changed again. You said you proved that the NOAA was proved to have done nothing wrong. That is a seperate statement from saying that they where not proved to have done wrong and require its own evidence to back it up.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 8:02pm, #74577

Every person with a mind has a moral authority to decide truth. In disregarding that you are admitting to not debating honestly.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 8:01pm, #74576

On #74573-Ah, and there is your false equivalency fallacy again, mate. That only works if it IS true the NOAA was unproven. It in fact, was not. And when you tried, you relied on a political biased source that was caught lying by the media.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:58pm, #74575

But all I'm saying is that THIS is what the the science says on the subject. I never said YOU have to agree with it. And you are not in a position of moral authority to decide what the truth is. I am since it's my opinion you are obsessed with.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 7:57pm, #74574

So you did mode change the subject to avoid that made a claim on the NOAA was unproved. You even continued when I pointed the error out. Even them most MMCC studies do not reach a conclusion like that.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:55pm, #74573

So....what "strawman STRAWMAN" am I committing to say: as long as I keep pointing that the scientific community backs MMCC, and that all I really care about, then I could care less about the rest since it's my opinion on that which you are obsessed with?

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:55pm, #74572

So....what "strawman STRAWMAN" am I committing to say: as long as keep pointing that the scientific community backs MMCC, and that all I really care about, then I could care less about the rest since it's my opinion on that which you are obsessed with?

calron - Apr 4, 2015 7:53pm, #74571

No, it's not a red herring as you get what I think wrong and continue on that path with no regard for truth. And you do things like attack sources over arguments and then pretend to know how much credit I gives based of a lack of evidence.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:53pm, #74570

That's funny, you create the straw man, straw man! X-D hahahah...Anyone who logically distills Calron's arguments into the fallacies put together by them MUST be making a straw man! hahahaha....Too funny mate :-)

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:51pm, #74569

FACT - 10000s of peer-reviewed paper supporting MMCC theory. Only a handful do not. Do you "deny" this? *cue Jeopardy music*

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:50pm, #74568

...while not giving ANY credit to respected groups like NASA, the NOAA or the groups they report on. So to add to your false equivalency logical fallacy, you are guilty of an dependency of redherrings ;-)

calron - Apr 4, 2015 7:50pm, #74567

Wow, did you just honestly switch issues on my statement in order to generate another strawman? I highly doubt that thousands of peer-reviewed factual studies of the NOAA's practices exist.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:49pm, #74566

No, it's not, mate. And your old tired, excuse "how do you know what I'm thinking"? is a red herring. You are almost solely using evidence from politically biased deniers, ignoring what it says about you to use the telegraph for instance...

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:47pm, #74565

What do you think those reviews were? An opinion poll? This is science, not a survey. lolololololol

calron - Apr 4, 2015 7:47pm, #74564

Ironically that is what is called and Argument From Ignorance. Additionally your claim of false equivalency is based off a improvable guess of what I'm thinking, allowing you to reject arguments with regard to facts or truth.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:46pm, #74563

Really? That's all you wanted? Why didn't you just say so. That's an easy one....tens of thousands of peer-reviewed factual studies (and findings) that have held up VERSUS the few that have not. Happy now, mate? :-)

calron - Apr 4, 2015 7:44pm, #74562

Actually, no you didn't. To actually show you position that no wrong doing occurring would require a though review of the measurements and a general audit. Instead you are stating that your position is right because there is no evidence that it is wrong.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:43pm, #74561

P.S. That is what a false equivalency logical fallacy is, mate. X-p

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:42pm, #74560

public opinion. Next? ;-)

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:42pm, #74559

The debate is not the same in quality on both sides, denier. The scientific community is pretty much on the same page on MM climate change and has weathered the silly so-called indictments against them. You pretend it is not by conflating a debate on

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:41pm, #74558

And those people are fruit from a poisoned tree as I evidenced in #74528,#74530,#74532. Next? ;-)

calron - Apr 4, 2015 7:41pm, #74557

There is no false equivalency. You read things that are not there.

fauxnews - Apr 4, 2015 7:40pm, #74556

LMFAO...I sure did. ;-) You are just running at it, with this red-herring pretending that I didn't. I in fact quoted a fact-check source indicting your sources and showed you HOW your sources are wrong by indicting their methodology.#74528,#74530,#74532

NEXT PAGE


Skip to page

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990