• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1211 months ago

    These are rhetoric tricks. Refusing to defend your viewpoint and trying to use carrot+stick.

    Why not answer my question? It will be easier than bring out stuff that would have been caught that easily.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -14
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s the truth. It’s like asserting that because I can’t give the scientific explanation for why the grass is green, it must not be, while I am pointing at the grass on the ground and showing you its color.

      Again, it’s up to you to be willing to accept the reality in front of you and what has been happening innthis country for decades together. It’s up to you to be willing to overcome your own pride to save yourself and your family from what’s coming. I can only lead you to water. It is you who must choose to drink. Choose wisely. Your family depends on it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -3
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m giving an analogy to demonstrate why his basis for denialism is wrong. He demands a scientific explanation for why an easily observable phenomenon is the way it is in order to accept what his eyes see. It’s not enough for him to look at something and see it for what it is.

          As in he needs to be told why the grass is green to accept that it is green. It’s not enough for him to just look at it and see for himself that it is, in fact, green.

          Replace “grass is green” with “civil war is happening”, and you’ll understand.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        611 months ago

        ’s like asserting that because I can’t give the scientific explanation for why the grass is green, it must not be, while I am pointing at the grass on the ground and showing you its color.

        Your analogy is false. We have as much data as we want that grass is green. We have no data about the future since it hasn’t happened yet. To predict the future to any degree we have to look at trends of the past and apply the scientific method to it.

        Again, it’s up to you to be willing to accept the reality in front of you

        Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.

        I can only lead you to water.

        Ok your Cassandra/Jeremiah routine is wearing thin.

        Choose wisely. Your family depends on it.

        Bifurcation, and FUD.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          Forgot the name for this one. It is when you assume the conclusion to get the conclusion. I know it’s a basic logical fallacy.

          Tautology. Circular reasoning, if you will.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -111 months ago

        …Right. So, based entirely on faith, with nothing to substantiate it, and with a healthy dose of some weird Messianic complex.

        Also, as another commenter pointed out, we actually have surprisingly robust data affirming that yes, indeed, the spectral albedo of grass does show peaks in the 530-550nm range correlating to M-type cone photoreceptor cells­— I.E., Is green. Civil war isn’t the sort of thing you’re going to be able to pass off as self-evident.