More conservative epic self owns

AProudLefty

AProudLefty

Black Kitty Ain't Happy
Q8pJpJK.jpg


3chrmcK.jpg

Boebert, you have competition. Hurry up!
 
AProudLefty said:
Q8pJpJK.jpg


3chrmcK.jpg

Boebert, you have competition. Hurry up!
Click to expand...

The Left doesn't believe in actual science. They're the sort that accepts things like Aryan physics (aka Deutsche Physik), or more recently the anti-GMO movement, Gorebal Warming (aka anthropomorphic CO2 based climate change), astrology ( https://www.exploringtheproblemspac...gy-political-orientation-and-trust-in-science ), and other pseudoscience.

They also tend to ignore that they are anti-scientific, sort of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/
 
AProudLefty said:
Q8pJpJK.jpg


3chrmcK.jpg

Boebert, you have competition. Hurry up!
Click to expand...

So you will vote for more open borders so the invasion can continue and for inflation and the Recession and for destroying industries to usher in a green agenda that will fail? That is logical? HAHAHAHAHA
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Left doesn't believe in actual science. They're the sort that accepts things like Aryan physics (aka Deutsche Physik), or more recently the anti-GMO movement, Gorebal Warming (aka anthropomorphic CO2 based climate change), astrology ( https://www.exploringtheproblemspac...gy-political-orientation-and-trust-in-science ), and other pseudoscience.

They also tend to ignore that they are anti-scientific, sort of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/
Click to expand...

You know you come off as an insane person writing like that? That's how the manifestos are usually written.
 
ptif219 said:
So you will vote for more open borders so the invasion can continue and for inflation and the Recession and for destroying industries to usher in a green agenda that will fail? That is logical? HAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

You expect me to reply to you seriously?
 
AProudLefty said:
You know you come off as an insane person writing like that? That's how the manifestos are usually written.
Click to expand...

You know, your response was irrelevant ad hominem. Prove me wrong. I know from long personal experience, and as I demonstrated above from elsewhere, the Left tends to be anti-science.

My latest target on that front locally is this whack-a-doodle

https://votesolar.org/team/yara-marin/

She put a vapid, jargon, and platitude laced letter in the paper here. I'm sending her a polite response that will pretty much demolish everything she said with math and science. I'm even including that I'd willingly debate her face-to-face. If she responds, I fully expect her to use ad hominem and tell me I'm wrong without a single fact included, ignoring everything I stated. No attempt at a rebuttal whatsoever. It wouldn't be the first time a radical Leftist blew me off with nothing useful to say because they didn't like what I had to say.

The subject in this case is wind and solar power, a pet peeve of mine. The people on the Left most stridently advocating for it are pretty much uniformly ill-informed liberal arts majors that can't deal with actual data, which Yara Marin is definitely in that category.

(She's also associated with La Familia Vota, a group promoting minority voting. She--accidentally I'm sure-- sent me a text last election that I turned into the state as a case of potential voter fraud, so there's that too)
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You know, your response was irrelevant ad hominem. Prove me wrong. I know from long personal experience, and as I demonstrated above from elsewhere, the Left tends to be anti-science.

My latest target on that front locally is this whack-a-doodle

https://votesolar.org/team/yara-marin/

She put a vapid, jargon, and platitude laced letter in the paper here. I'm sending her a polite response that will pretty much demolish everything she said with math and science. I'm even including that I'd willingly debate her face-to-face. If she responds, I fully expect her to use ad hominem and tell me I'm wrong without a single fact included, ignoring everything I stated. No attempt at a rebuttal whatsoever. It wouldn't be the first time a radical Leftist blew me off with nothing useful to say because they didn't like what I had to say.

The subject in this case is wind and solar power, a pet peeve of mine. The people on the Left most stridently advocating for it are pretty much uniformly ill-informed liberal arts majors that can't deal with actual data, which Yara Marin is definitely in that category.

(She's also associated with La Familia Vota, a group promoting minority voting. She--accidentally I'm sure-- sent me a text last election that I turned into the state as a case of potential voter fraud, so there's that too)
Click to expand...

Ad hominem? I said you COME OFF as an insane person. You might be a troll (which I believe you are).

If I said that the Earth is flat, I'd seem insane to you, right? That isn't ad hominem.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Left doesn't believe in actual science. They're the sort that accepts things like Aryan physics (aka Deutsche Physik), or more recently the anti-GMO movement, Gorebal Warming (aka anthropomorphic CO2 based climate change), astrology ( https://www.exploringtheproblemspac...gy-political-orientation-and-trust-in-science ), and other pseudoscience.

They also tend to ignore that they are anti-scientific, sort of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/
Click to expand...

And then we read your sources and find you are the one that is suffering from Dunning-Kruger.

From your first source -
So why would egalitarian liberals embrace signals of scientific respectability in one case (climate change) but not another (astrology). My guess is that “values” have less to do with it than trust, and whom one trusts has a lot to do with one’s politics.
Click to expand...
So is climate change respectable or not when it comes to science? If we accept your source then it must be.

Your second source has nothing to do with science and its acceptance. It is about how authoritarians can be on both the left and the right.
Costello and his colleagues started fresh. They developed what eventually became a list of 39 statements capturing sentiments such as “We need to replace the established order by any means necessary” and “I should have the right not to be exposed to offensive views.”
Click to expand...
I agree that dictators can come from the left and the right. But it would seem you are trying to argue that Nazis are on the right since you brought up Aryan physics.

Thanks for another shining example of a conservative self own. Keep up the good work.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You know, your response was irrelevant ad hominem. Prove me wrong. I know from long personal experience, and as I demonstrated above from elsewhere, the Left tends to be anti-science.

My latest target on that front locally is this whack-a-doodle

https://votesolar.org/team/yara-marin/

She put a vapid, jargon, and platitude laced letter in the paper here. I'm sending her a polite response that will pretty much demolish everything she said with math and science. I'm even including that I'd willingly debate her face-to-face. If she responds, I fully expect her to use ad hominem and tell me I'm wrong without a single fact included, ignoring everything I stated. No attempt at a rebuttal whatsoever. It wouldn't be the first time a radical Leftist blew me off with nothing useful to say because they didn't like what I had to say.

The subject in this case is wind and solar power, a pet peeve of mine. The people on the Left most stridently advocating for it are pretty much uniformly ill-informed liberal arts majors that can't deal with actual data, which Yara Marin is definitely in that category.

(She's also associated with La Familia Vota, a group promoting minority voting. She--accidentally I'm sure-- sent me a text last election that I turned into the state as a case of potential voter fraud, so there's that too)
Click to expand...

Why are you opposed to making solar more accessible and affordable? I am curious as to when you are going to install that coal power plant on your roof since you are so opposed to solar.
 
AProudLefty said:
Ad hominem? I said you COME OFF as an insane person. You might be a troll (which I believe you are).

If I said that the Earth is flat, I'd seem insane to you, right? That isn't ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem is To (or at) the man That is, rather than addressing the issue, you toss insults or other irrelevancies to the person you are addressing.

ad-hominem-examples.png
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Ad hominem is To (or at) the man That is, rather than addressing the issue, you toss insults or other irrelevancies to the person you are addressing.
Click to expand...
Ironic that you whine about ad homs after this post:
T. A. Gardner said:
The Left doesn't believe in actual science. They're the sort that accepts things like Aryan physics (aka Deutsche Physik), or more recently the anti-GMO movement, Gorebal Warming (aka anthropomorphic CO2 based climate change), astrology ( https://www.exploringtheproblemspac...gy-political-orientation-and-trust-in-science ), and other pseudoscience.

They also tend to ignore that they are anti-scientific, sort of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/
Click to expand...

You look as demented as the idiots posting those Tweets, Terry. What happened to you? Too much radiation? Drugs? Alcohol? Genetic inferiority?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Are you opposed to making power sources affordable?
Click to expand...

Solar and wind are not affordable. They are expensive and unreliable. That can be seen everywhere the two have been heavily invested in and implemented. What works and is affordable, would be nuclear backed by natural gas. That lowers carbon emissions about as much as possible, and likely less than a grid heavily dependent on solar and wind backed up by fossil fuel sources due to the inherent unreliability of solar and wind.

If our grid were say 75% nuclear, 25% natural gas, we'd have cheap power with a very significant reduction in CO2 without having to pave over paradise with parking lots of miles and miles of solar panels and wind turbines. It's only the anti-science radical greentard Left fighting this issue, but they have the media idiots backing them so the issue is never rationally discussed. Instead, we get fed a diet of bullshit by them on this subject.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Left doesn't believe in actual science. They're the sort that accepts things like Aryan physics (aka Deutsche Physik), or more recently the anti-GMO movement, Gorebal Warming (aka anthropomorphic CO2 based climate change), astrology ( https://www.exploringtheproblemspac...gy-political-orientation-and-trust-in-science ), and other pseudoscience.

They also tend to ignore that they are anti-scientific, sort of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...dimensions-left-wing-authoritarianism/620185/
Click to expand...

What is the scientific consensus on these issues?


You are the one denying those findings
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Solar and wind are not affordable. They are expensive and unreliable. That can be seen everywhere the two have been heavily invested in and implemented. What works and is affordable, would be nuclear backed by natural gas. That lowers carbon emissions about as much as possible, and likely less than a grid heavily dependent on solar and wind backed up by fossil fuel sources due to the inherent unreliability of solar and wind.

If our grid were say 75% nuclear, 25% natural gas, we'd have cheap power with a very significant reduction in CO2 without having to pave over paradise with parking lots of miles and miles of solar panels and wind turbines. It's only the anti-science radical greentard Left fighting this issue, but they have the media idiots backing them so the issue is never rationally discussed. Instead, we get fed a diet of bullshit by them on this subject.
Click to expand...



Gathering free energy is too expensive?


Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top