FIFY.RedAppleGP wrote:The only reason why I'm making a half-assed reply that doesn't actually analyze anything you wrote is because it'd be breaking the rules if I didn't.
Ok, but that's still very different from a scientific consensus.RedAppleGP wrote:because they are more intelligent than me at something, not because they just say so. Now if they didn't provide evidence, then the authority that I'm referring to can go fuck themselves.
You didn't address what I said here, so I'm just going to repeat it:
I wrote:So your line of thinking is:
You should trust what 99.9% of scientists say, what 60% of economists say, and all of what brimstoneSalad says.
Do you understand why scientific and economic consensus are actually valuable in the first place, or do you just trust it because brimstone says so?
The reason why scientific and economic consensus are valuable is because scientists and economists are experts of their respective fields and because the majority of them agree on something within those fields.
I know brimstone has a lot of knowledge and is intelligent, but he is neither a political expert nor more than one person.
Both?RedAppleGP wrote:Both. brimstone is probably the smartest mofo I've ever met in my life, right next to my dad,so I'll believe what they say, and do some research about it, and think about ti from there. The only reason I'd take it as fact as first is because brimstone provides evidence and facts.
You can't both not question and question what somebody is saying.
I didn't see you address this, so I'm just going to repeat it:RedAppleGP wrote:I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.
I wrote:No offense, but that's because you didn't seem to actually analyze what I wrote there.
I'm not saying the bias against Bernie is bad in and of itself, it's bad because of the consequences of it and more importantly the implications it has on the party.
What I said was, again:RedAppleGP wrote:well what did you say?
I wrote:No offense, but that's because you didn't seem to actually analyze what I wrote there.
I'm not saying the bias against Bernie is bad in and of itself, it's bad because of the consequences of it and more importantly the implications it has on the party.
What does that have to do with it?RedAppleGP wrote:Because I honestly don't take these dolan trump and bernie sanders discussions very seriously.
And if you don't take them seriously, why do you start them?
You can't just vaguely use "I refer you to the answer I gave earlier" to dodge everything I say and call it a response.RedAppleGP wrote:I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.
I don't think you addressed it, so again:
I wrote:I was talking about why Trump is bad, not benign like you seemed to be suggesting, and your response is that Bernie is bad too? That doesn't address what I said, even if it were true.
You didn't address what I said about scientific consensus.RedAppleGP wrote:I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.
I wrote:Do you understand why scientific and economic consensus are actually valuable in the first place, or do you just trust it because brimstone says so?
The reason why scientific and economic consensus are valuable is because scientists and economists are experts of their respective fields and because the majority of them agree on something within those fields.
I know brimstone has a lot of knowledge and is intelligent, but he is neither a political expert nor more than one person.
Again, you didn't address it.RedAppleGP wrote:I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.
I wrote:Do you understand why scientific and economic consensus are actually valuable in the first place, or do you just trust it because brimstone says so?
The reason why scientific and economic consensus are valuable is because scientists and economists are experts of their respective fields and because the majority of them agree on something within those fields.
I know brimstone has a lot of knowledge and is intelligent, but he is neither a political expert nor more than one person.
...RedAppleGP wrote: I'd like to see a wall, it'd make things more interesting. It's not a good thing, but an interesting one.
Are you serious? Can you just answer the question?RedAppleGP wrote:I refer you to the answer I gave earlier,
I wrote:Are you suggesting that Trump is better than Hillary because of his position on nuclear energy and GMOs, or just better than Bernie?
You never addressed it. How about, if you think you did, you just post the quote?RedAppleGP wrote:I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.
I wrote:Your answer didn't address my points directly though. It didn't say anything to explain why you think Trump's positions on nuclear energy and GMOs outweigh the fact that he's brought out the worst of people like that.
*nuclearRedAppleGP wrote:but he supports nucular power.
If you're going to criticize Bernie Sanders on a topic, you should at least spell it correctly.
This isn't a debate about whether or not nuclear energy is good. I support nuclear energy, and I also wish Bernie Sanders one. Miniboes has the same views, from my understanding.
1) Stop worrying about having 'authority' and just address what I'm saying. But this isn't even a debate about nuclear energy.RedAppleGP wrote:I'll actually have more authority on the matter.
2) You don't have more authority about it now, so it's irrelevant anyway.
3) Knowledge about nuclear energy doesn't translate to political expertise in general.
