You have a lot of back pain?
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Yeah,. i'm sure in the context you posted that you where just pointing out that
Yeah, and my point was that the existence of those people does not give anyone carte blanche to ignore actual science being done.
You're quite free to argue about the data, but the argument made by Bubble181 wasn't that, it was that everyone is just trusting scientists blindly.
Yeah, sure, the article that has laymen make ok arguments about climate stuff, and then asking them to talk to someone who's more educated on the subject is all about blindly trusting whatever a scientist says...
Plus, what's your alternative? Listen to your gut and dismiss any argument that contradicts that because everyone, even highly educated people can be wrong and make mistakes? It's that how you'd fix your car, ignore the mechanics and just do what fits your christian upbringing?
Yeah, if someone you're arguing with about math shows you that they don't understand 2+2=4, you're not having a debate with them at all, and their ideas about math can be dismissed.
Well, 1st off, soldiers don't make those decisions, generals do.
And your example is faulty, because you're most likely talking about the morality of fighting, and not the tactics and strategy of it.
Nah, the pain you guys are causing is mostly in my ass...
Nah, the real reason is that most people don't actually understand how the whole thing works, and that we can't actually be sure of anything, and that most science is simply a very good approximation of what's going on, that keeps getting better and better as we know more.
Just ask Asimov: https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
The back pain is because of walking around with your head so far up your own ass.
But I guess that explains your ass pain too.
Funny how you can complain about strawmen, but have no issues with ad-hominems.
But, hey, claiming that someone used a fallacy, and not backing up that statement with arguments is totally not the same as what they're accusing that video of.
Oh, and, btw, even if i'm being an asshole, it doesn't mean i'm wrong, does it...
I'll start by telling you it's not an ad hominem when I suggest your head's up your ass: I really do think you're willfully ignorant, and in love with your meandering, evasive snark.
A strawman is putting words into your opponent's mouth, then denouncing those arguments. I guess the video is really more of straw-hominem, as it puts words in their mouth, and then just calls them idiots. Over and over and over.
That video wasn't 'about' anything, really, it was for someone, namely, you. What's the point of that video? It's entirely there to make people who believe in climate change... feel better about themselves. And at the expense of the 'phenomenonally stupid,' I believe they were called by the Unmarried Female President with Purple Hair (code for: this is also why we're better than other people). It wasn't 'about' me, it wasn't even about climate change. It was 100% a message designed to reinforce narcissistic personality disorder in people who are so blind to the world around them that they don't realize it's pretty weird that their values match objective reality all of the time. Boy that sure seems unlikely, these people are geniuses.
What's accomplished by making a video that repeatedly just calls a bunch of people stupid? You think you're gonna show that to someone who doubts climate change and have them go "Oh shucks, I guess I have been an idiot, climate change is real now."? You gonna show it to people who think are stupid and after repeatedly using the video to call them stupid, they're not going to just punch you in the face?
And if this doesn't sound like it's for you personally, then congrats, this post is still about you.
Cajungal
Staff member
DAAAAAAAAMN
The video itself is not in any way aimed at swaying anyone's opinion.
It was created by some of the folks from Funny or Die, and its target audience is people who already believe in the science behind climate change. Its target audience is also not-so-subtly those people who wanted a (particular) woman in the White House instead of its current occupant. It essentially asks, "Can you believe there are still people who don't believe in climate change?" and then goes on to lampoon them.
That's why it's in the funny pictures thread, and not one of the more serious ones. If you don't find it funny, that's fine. There are people who don't find Lewis Black funny, or Bill Cosby, or Andrew Dice Clay, or Emo Philips, or Melissa McCarthy. Not everyone appreciates the same type of humor, and that's ok.
--Patrick
It was created by some of the folks from Funny or Die, and its target audience is people who already believe in the science behind climate change. Its target audience is also not-so-subtly those people who wanted a (particular) woman in the White House instead of its current occupant. It essentially asks, "Can you believe there are still people who don't believe in climate change?" and then goes on to lampoon them.
That's why it's in the funny pictures thread, and not one of the more serious ones. If you don't find it funny, that's fine. There are people who don't find Lewis Black funny, or Bill Cosby, or Andrew Dice Clay, or Emo Philips, or Melissa McCarthy. Not everyone appreciates the same type of humor, and that's ok.
--Patrick
*looks around at some of the folks here* Yeah, about that . . .
Aside from whatever is actually being stated in the graph above, I cannot fully express how much I hate axis abuse like this, meant to highlight what is likely not a statistically significant difference between the numbers presented. For comparison, here's what those same two columns look like when they show you the whole scale, not just the last 10% of it:
And (as per the prior discussion in this thread) this is one of myriad reasons why people sometimes have a hard time swallowing "science," because that which gets presented (by scientists or non-scientists) tends to get skewed towards the "sexy" for mass media. Okay, rant over, relurking now
No. Please post more!Aside from whatever is actually being stated in the graph above, I cannot fully express how much I hate axis abuse like this, meant to highlight what is likely not a statistically significant difference between the numbers presented. For comparison, here's what those same two columns look like when they show you the whole scale, not just the last 10% of it:
View attachment 26968
And (as per the prior discussion in this thread) this is one of myriad reasons why people sometimes have a hard time swallowing "science," because that which gets presented (by scientists or non-scientists) tends to get skewed towards the "sexy" for mass media. Okay, rant over, relurking now
While of course your graph does a more accurate job of representing the two named statistics, I don’t think it goes far enough, because with a total US population of ~325 million and only ~210 million represented by the graph, I am suddenly extremely interested in knowing what the remaining 115 million are up to. This means the graph needs another bar for “People who have neither FT employment nor welfare.”
Even more important, I believe the graph needs a fourth column for people who are both FT employed AND on welfare, because otherwise the implied message of the Fox graph is that only people who don’t have a FT job need welfare (i.e. “are a drain on the rest of society”). Also, since this group can be counted as either FT or welfare, whoever makes the graph has the luxury of lumping them in and inflating whichever side makes their case look stronger.
Everyone is always eager to graph A against B, but they usually “forget” to graph “both” and “neither.”
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
They're spouses, children, retired, indepedent contractors, artists who work on commission, etc. Many of the people on "welfare" in that graph are also children and the elderly. It's just a terrible graph, and it demonstrates absolutely nothing of value.
And there's a not insignificant number of spouses, children, retired, ICs, and artists on welfare.
So yes, the graph itself is all but useless for pointing out anything other than someone's lousy (or possibly disingenuous) infographic skills.
--Patrick
Fox Noise. There's no possibly here. None at all.
Except that you used it as some sort of argument about the points i was making, which does make it an ad hominem.
And my snark isn't evasive, it just assumes the person i'm arguing with isn't interested in actually listening or looking things up... because that's ussually the case 99% of the time.
Yeah, it's not nice, but you're supposed to use this one if your intention is just to point it out outside the argument:
Except those very arguments you are claiming where put in their mouths, aka they never made them, where seen even on this very forum back in the day... even though it wasn't as wide spread as in other places from the internet.
You can even look them up.
If you really think mockery isn't a valid avenue of criticism, take it up with whoever invented satire.
Sure, it won't help sway anyone who doesn't feel shame, but it's not really intended to be a game changer that would make someone see the light.
Then again, shaming people into certain ways of thinking is basically how religion works...
Straw burns easy.
I feel like I should get that reference, but I don't.
GasBandit
Staff member
Lot's Wife. The only people God spared from the destruction of Sodom. The angel warned them to leave and not look back. She looked back.
C'mon, even I get that reference. I mean, how often do people turn to salt?
But Nixon is too old a reference for you to get?
Like, twice a week for me. Every time I do a shot of Tequila.
GasBandit
Staff member
He's probably read the bible quite a few times since Nixon left office.
Dave
Staff member
You gotta admit that was a funny line, though.
BUTTHURT EMAILS!