THE ALT-RIGHT HAILS ITS VICTORIOUS GOD-EMPEROR

[JustWinBaby]

(12-24-2016, 01:04 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What is my case?

Great question.

Why don't you link a study establishing your case?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 12:54 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Actually, no. 

This is an important distinction that you don't get but would serve you well in life, in general:
"I haven't read a study that convinces me CC isn't junk science"

That's why I asked you for links to studies that led you to believe what you believe. I know full well you don't believe what you believe based on any scientific study you actually read or understood.  Connect the dots.

Look, dude . . .

That isn't what you claimed. 

(12-04-2016, 05:12 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL says the guy who doesn't trust the "liberal press," thinks climate change is a hoax, and Obama is a "demagogue."

(12-10-2016, 05:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I get that from actual studies I've read.

You claimed climate change is a hoax from actual studies you read. I would like to read those studies for myself. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 12:57 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO...Like what?  Because I think the point being made with that sailed way over your head.  Happy to explain it to you, but I have no idea what you think you read.

Too drunk to remember what you wrote?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 01:02 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Indeed.  But the point was to show how astonishingly the claim of AGT is and to ask why you aren't naturally more skeptical of the claims made.  That point was lost on you, because you've suspended the most remote of healthy skepticism that those questions should have slapped you in the face with.

Lead a horse to water and all that but...

Lead a horse to water?  With what? All those studies you won't cite?

[JustWinBaby]

(12-24-2016, 01:15 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You claimed climate change is a hoax from actual studies you read. I would like to read those studies for myself. 

Yes, what I've read makes me question the legitimacy of the "consensus".  But I'm not trying to prove a hoax - I'm simply asking you to link the studies that led you to believe in AGW.

Was that complicated for you? So feel free to stop attacking me and start "blinding me with science"

[JustWinBaby]

(12-24-2016, 01:18 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Lead a horse to water?  With what? All those studies you won't cite?

When you post a study "proving" Global Warming, then I can post something that "refutes" it.  But you're not a scientist, nor are you interested in debating actual science.

So instead of wasting our time why not just admit you believe whatever the science HuffPo says it is?   At least that would be an honest response.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-23-2016, 04:45 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If you understood the scientific method, then you'd know the burden is not on me to disprove your claim.

Again, I have never made a claim supporting or opposing climate change. So I don't need to prove a claim I never made.  You don't have any idea what I believe or don't believe about climate change because I have never stated what I believe regarding climate change. For all you know, I might have the same opinion about climate change as you. Or I might not. You don't know. Stop pretending like you do. 

So for the umpteenth time, post the studies you read. That way I can read them for myself. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 01:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yes, what I've read makes me question the legitimacy of the "consensus".  But I'm not trying to prove a hoax - I'm simply asking you to link the studies that led you to believe in AGW.

Was that complicated for you?  So feel free to stop attacking me and start "blinding me with science"

I never wrote I believe in AGW. What lead you to that assumption?

[JustWinBaby]

(12-24-2016, 01:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Again, I have never made a claim supporting or opposing climate change.

Ummm, ok.  Not sure why you are arguing then.  False pretenses to troll are pretty lame, but I'll enteratain your BS anyway.

Would you agree that if Climate Change is not a fact, not an inevitability, then the opposite of that would be a hoax?  So wouldn't a claim of "hoax" require first that you prove Climate Change is a fact/reality?

To break it down in plain English - I can't prove CC is a hoax until you first prove you believe it's real.  If CC isn't a thing then it can't be a hoax [sorry is this hard to follow??!?!]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 01:28 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: When you post a study "proving" Global Warming, then I can post something that "refutes" it.  But you're not a scientist, nor are you interested in debating actual science.

So instead of wasting our time why not just admit you believe whatever the science HuffPo says it is?   At least that would be an honest response.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove climate change, global warming, or AGW. Or anything else you want to call it. I have never claimed it is real or a hoax. 

I've asked you to post the studies you read which lead you to believe what you believe so I can decide for myself. So cut the bullshit and just post the studies so I can read them for myself. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 01:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ummm, ok.  Not sure why you are arguing then.  False pretenses to troll are pretty lame, but I'll enteratain your BS anyway.

Would you agree that if Climate Change is not a fact, not an inevitability, then the opposite of that would be a hoax?  So wouldn't a claim of "hoax" require first that you prove Climate Change is a fact/reality?

To break it down in plain English - I can't prove CC is a hoax until you first prove you believe it's real.  If CC isn't a thing then it can't be a hoax [sorry is this hard to follow??!?!]

Jesus Christ!  I'm not arguing the legitimacy of global warming with you. How can I if I can't read the same studies which lead you to believe what you believe? Please spare me any more plain English and just post the studies.


You know global warming is a hoax because you read the studies. If I read the same studies shouldn't I reach the same conclusion?  If you know climate change is a hoax, then what I believe regarding climate change really doesn't matter. If you proved climate change is a hoax, you wouldn't prove I'm wrong about climate change. Rather, you would prove the authors of the studies you read wrong. So why don't you prove the authors wrong since they did the research and published the studies?  Not me. 

I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything. Because I know you can't and won't. I just want to read the studies. 


To break it down for you in plain English, in order for me to develop an informed opinion regarding climate change requires that I first inform myself. THAT PROCESS BEGINS WITH READING THE GOD DAMN STUDIES!  How can I know climate change is a hoax or real if you won't share your information?

It's not my belief or lack thereof you need to disprove. It's the study's evidence-based coclusions you need to disprove IOT prove the author's conclusions are a hoax.  The way you disprove their results is by demonstrating their results aren't reproducible in the same manner Andrew Wakefield's research was proven to be a hoax.  I shouldn't need to explain that to an expert on the scientific method such as yourself. 

[hollodero]

(12-24-2016, 01:02 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Indeed.  But the point was to show how astonishingly the claim of AGT is and to ask why you aren't naturally more skeptical of the claims made.  That point was lost on you, because you've suspended the most remote of healthy skepticism that those questions should have slapped you in the face with.

Lead a horse to water and all that but...

And yet you were completely unwilling to point out what exactly should have "slapped me in the face". You demand links and provide none. You read studies you are unwilling to share. You said exactly zero substantial things to the matter at hand as of now. I'm tired pointing out what everyone points out.

Instead you just belittle and insult people.
At this point the most polite thing I could say about you is that you're probably a troll, and I will treat you as such and prompt everyone else to do so as well. When you share one substantial point of critizism I am gladly willing to debate, share insights, maybe learn a little something for myself. Until then, I'm done here.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 01:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: If CC isn't a thing then it can't be a hoax [sorry is this hard to follow??!?!]

If climate change isn't real it can't be a hoax?

[THE Bigzoman]

(11-16-2016, 05:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But white people can only be victims of racism on an individual basis.  Black people are subject to systemic racisdm because white people control a disproportionate amount of the wealth and power in this country.

And using anecdotal evidence about whites being victims of hate crimes and blacks never being charged is a total lie straight out of the white supremacist handbook.  52% of racially based hate crimes target blacks while only about 20% target whites.  

Yet you complain that when an old man beaten to death because a child said he hit him then the perpetrators should be charged with a racially motivated hate crime?  

The fight in the first video appears to be over a car wreck, not politics.  The video does not show how it started.

The video about the Milwaukee gang violence does not say if the people were arrested or not.  So you have no idea what they were charged with.  And police do charge people when they commit crimes.  In fact I can post severeal studies that prove that police racially profile minorities.  you can not show me a single one that shows that police racially profile white people.  

Your complaints of police letting minorities commit crimes with no repercussions while singling out white people for prosecution are absurd and have no basis in fact. 

Nothing is more pathetic than a white guy trying to play the "race victim" card here in the United States. 

A very small proportion of white people control wealth and sysyemic power. not white people as a collective. Rockefeller's influence had no bearing on Joe the Plumbers.

[THE Bigzoman]

Also, hail lord Kek.

Why, oh why did they adopt a World of Warcraft term?!

[Rotobeast]

(12-28-2016, 02:29 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Also, hail lord Kek.

Why, oh why did they adopt a World of Warcraft term?!

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

[Vas Deferens]

(12-24-2016, 09:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: Until then, I'm done here.

Individuals with your intellectual ability need to continue grinding down the assholes who propagandize ignorance until they shrivel up like their impotent genitals.

Carry on good sir.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-24-2016, 01:16 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is a really, REALLY, great point.

Psuedo-intellectuals have driven partisan stakes in the ground ostensibly to self-affirm and validate themselves.  In other words, they are arguing not for right or wrong but what makes them look smart.  And they are easy to spot - all hat and no cattle, so to speak.

One of the downsides of the internet is it provides a forum for stupid people to actually be relevant, and be emboldened with rep points from other equally stupid people.

All hat and no cattle like claiming climate change is a hoax based upon "actual studies" you have read while simultaneously refusing to post any of the actual studies you have read which lead to your belief?  Then claiming you understand the scientific method better than everyone else here, yet you need me to post a study to disprove my belief in a study you claim you read which you won't show me rather than disproving the evidence-based conclusions of the actual studies you read, but don't believe.