Page By Category
Forum - Character profile: Ed - Page 5
Tags: Snob Goblin is a muncher of sorts, Ed is on drugs, Ed is a huge floppy pussy, MAKE IT STOP, BORING THREAD IS BORING, ED IS NEVER WRONG, This is Ed and I never said I was never wrong Matt, unlike you, ED WILL NEVER BE WRONG, and this is Ed, Matt debate me Ed or you are a troll, This is Ed and I am a huge retard, Matt is a coward, its you're not your, This is Ed I never said I was a retard, Ed's tag about Matt never being wrong is WRONG, Matt you never EVER admit when you're wrong, This really is Ed and none of these other tags are mine, I'm sparticus, Ed has the reading level of a 3rd grader, This is Snob Goblin and I just clogged the toilet, This is Wilfred Brimley, CHECK YOUR BLOOD SUGAR AND CHECK IT OFTEN, We here at Liberty Mutual like CORN DAWGS, MAKE SURE YOU SPAY AND NEUTER YOUR PETS TO HELP CONTRO, Abandon thread snail is funny, Too many tags, Srsly, ABANDON THREAD!, Ed needs a sense of humor, I FUCKIN LOVE CORN DOGS, backpedal to the future, SPOCK MUST SAVE THIS THREAD, hard chiseled spock, Sea of spock, drowning in spock, what has Wolf Bird unleashed?, DIABEETUS, stupid tags, Can't count all the Spocks!, This is Ed and I suck huge black cocks, This is Ed and I want Spock inside my puckered asshole, godfuckingdamnit, Ed, Nominate [ Add Tags ]
This forum thread is currently locked, no new replies or edits can be made.
| [ Return to Topic Ritz-Carlton | Reply to Topic ] |
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:40 |
| ||||
 Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original | "Could it be that you're stubborn asshole that only changes his mind in rare occasions?" I'm open to that possibility. Are you open to the possibility that you're retarded? | |||||
| #121 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Kaiser Falkner | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 11:49 |
| ||||
 HAIL HYDRA Level: 6 CS Original | You have to ask Ed, why is it when I disagree with people, we dont get threads where people just get overtly frustrated with me? Why do you think people hate the way you argue. It has nothing to do with your position and everything to do with something very innate in the way you present anything and conduct yourself. Its funny that a couple of pages back you accused me of being new to debate and argumentation, but you're the only one who seems to elicit this response- even from me. And even I start dealing with CTers with a higher level of tact than insults. | |||||
| #122 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Wolf Bird | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:00 |
| ||||
 I shoot you dead. Level: 9 CS Original |
| |||||
| #123 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:01 |
| ||||
 Level: 10 CS Original |
Yet, you have repeated yourself many times in this thread, according to you that is a fallacy and bad debating. Why is that? Can you give me an example of how you... "utilize the persons counter point to demonstrate the inherent breakdown involved therein"... while not restating your previous point in a different way to do that? For a simple example, if Matt says that nutritious doesn't have to mean mean healthy and I say that it does and every single legitimate usage of the word uses it that way and I challenge him to show me valid usage of the word where it is used the way he uses it, if he just repeats the same claim he previously made what does one do? Doesn't one have to state the point again and restate that they need to demonstrate that his usage of the word is valid? For another example, I asked you what was wrong with my P&T arguments. You ignored all my criticisms and described the show as if you hadn't even seen it. How do i deal with that without simply saying you have ignored all my points and possibly restating them again and explaining why they matter?
*sigh* Why you have to be so intentionally obtuse I don't know. IF my position is that cannabis being legal has no negative sociological affect and THAT's why there's no good reason why it shouldn't be legal, a strong argument against that position is showing that there is indeed negative sociological affects from legalising it. That basically ends my entire position for why cannabis should be legal right there. Any other argument is merely superfluous and doesn't get to the meat of it. Likewise if I say I don't believe in evolution because we can't show the evolutionary lineage with fossils for the evolution of, for example, whales from land based animals and that they seem to have been created fully formed in their current state. The MAIN MEAT of that position is showing a lineage such as the whales evolving from land based animals DOES indeed exist in the fossil record. Any other argument about gene transfer or geological dating doesn't get to the heart of the argument that person makes. The real point here is that I didn't say, contrary to your characterisation, that all your points were invalid by default without discussion. What I was saying was that even if they were all correct and you demonstrated it to my satisfaction, it still wouldn't make a difference to my opinion on cannabis because my opinion was based only on the possible negative social impact of it and therefore it would be better to concentrate on the point that I felt would prove me wrong.
Uh yes I did, you said I didn't say something yet I said exactly what you said I didn't say various times in various different ways. I even agreed with everything you said in your first post which ALSO said all of that.
Jesus Christ you sound like VTV, can't you talk like a normal person? Sorry I didn't study philosophy in school or maybe I am just dumb so please don't use phrases like "fundamental pathway" it sounds like word salad to me.
Yet every time you give me an example of what you think I should have said it turns out I did exactly that. I agreed with various parts of Skeptoid article and said exactly what those parts where and made a point to say that McDonalds aren't evil and that their food can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet. What else do you want me to do? I then went on to say that however other parts of the Skeptoid article are simply not correct and show a very high level of ignorance of nutrition. I fail to see what is so wrong about that.
If everyone understands why did I have to keep correcting them? Evidently they did not understand. Maybe we should try this instead... why don't you in a paragraph or two explain what my position actually was and what my argument actually was on both the McDonalds thread AND the Penn and Teller thread. I highly suspect you will get it ass backwards, but maybe you'll surprise me. I honestly dont think you really care to try and understand what I say. If you get it right, you will gain some credibility in my eyes and I may take your opinion of my arguments more seriously. So far however you barely seem to understand a single thing Ive said. | |||||
| #124 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:06 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original |
Like I said, was I wrong when I debate CTers as well? Why did people praise me so much when I debated them? I have not changed my arguing style. Maybe its because before I came along and took a dissenting view on certain topics like the McDonalds and P&T subjects they were being left unchallenged. Apparently the majority here just seem to agree with people like Matt on these topics for no reason. I suspect the only reason you have a problem with me all of a sudden is because Im not criticising CTists Im criticising people here that supposedly are more sensible. You refuse to say why Im wrong in the P&T thread despite me being specific and clear, you absolutely refuse to deal with my actual specific issues with the episode. I don't care if you don;t like me, that is the kind of behaviour that pisses me off from truthers or Creationists and I don't tolerate it from them either. | |||||
| #125 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:08 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #126 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:09 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #127 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:11 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #128 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Kaiser Falkner | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:12 |
| ||||
HAIL HYDRA Level: 6 CS Original | No Ed, is has nothing to do with you dissenting from the majority. I've disagreed with the majority before and it never reached this level of absurdity. Get over yourself. This thread is clearly done and I'm done trying to be reasonable with you. | |||||
| #129 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:14 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #130 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:23 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original |
Then why can't you just be specific about your criticisms? Why do you say I didn't say something when I said exactly that? Why can't you show you care about what my position is? No discussion ive ever had has reached this level of absurdity except on this forum which apparently is now mainly populated by trolls and idiots that apparently have forgotten what the point of being a skeptic is all about. Do you think you're special or something? That I'm suddenly being unreasonable about these subjects in particular? Why would I do that? Why didn't I do it to CT's? Why didn't anyone have a problem with my arguments then? You won't answer, you've stopped answering direct questions apparently. | |||||
| #131 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:26 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #132 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Kaiser Falkner | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:30 |
| ||||
HAIL HYDRA Level: 6 CS Original | I've stopped talking to people who have no interest in really have a meaningful level of discourse. | |||||
| #133 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:38 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original | I would love to Falkner but when you ignore all my direct questions its pretty difficult to have a proper discussion. | |||||
| #134 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 12:40 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #135 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| AKBastard | Posted: Feb 10, 2011 - 14:38 |
| ||||
 Level: 5 CS Original | Why is it that the character profiles of Kaiser, Roxette, Matt, and myself couldn't even clear 10 responses. Yet erectile dysfunction's has 136 in not even 24 hours? Methinks erectile dysfunction is a lightning rod for drama, spam, and bullshit. He brings out the worst of everyone and some of you people enable it, too. | |||||
| #136 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 00:41 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original | Snob, Or maybe certain people here want to disagree with me for no reason at all. Maybe you can tell me why P&T are given a free pass to promote stupid CT crap just because they are P&T or why it was so hard to get people to understand that Mcdonalds isn't healthy nutritious food. I know you won't though. | |||||
| #137 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| AKBastard | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 02:10 |
| ||||
Level: 5 CS Original | "Or maybe certain people here want to disagree with me for no reason at all." Just keep thinking that, Eddy. "Maybe you can tell me why P&T are given a free pass to promote stupid CT crap just because they are P&T or why it was so hard to get people to understand that Mcdonalds isn't healthy nutritious food." I'm watching the episode in question right now. It just seems like a mockery of silly college-aged hippies who don't exactly know what they are protesting more than full-on global warming denialism. P&T clearly say in the episode that they don't feel the environment is in any immediate danger. Even if they do promote a "stupid CT" by denying global warming, I don't think anyone here said they were above and beyond criticism for it. McDonalds I could care less about. I admit I don't know jack shit about nutrition. | |||||
| #138 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 02:29 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original | You are obviously not being very critical of P&T I explained exactly why that episode is a bunch of unscientific denialist crap. No one has even attempted deal with any of my actual criticisms of it. | |||||
| #139 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| AKBastard | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 02:31 |
| ||||
Level: 5 CS Original | They had other experts on the episode who looked at the same data that everyone else had, and came to the conclusion that there's no need to get frantic over climate change. Why do you dismiss that opinion so much? I can't believe I got suckered into debating with you. Oh well, too late now. | |||||
| #140 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 02:43 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original | GO READ THE THREAD they had FAKE experts for the most part btw you should know by now that CTs love fake experts. Every crazy fringe belief is going to have them. Truthers, homeopathy,,Creationism, anti-vaxx, holocaust denial take your pick P&T made demonstrably false misleading claims and spread LIES because they admit they don't know what they are talking about and Penn's problem with GW he admits is emotional, yet he made the show acting like knew what they were talking about anyway. There is no real difference between that episode and Jesse Venturas "conspiracy theory" show. Guess what, that show has it's own "experts" as well! I guess that means 911 was an inside job and HARRP is a weather mind control weapons and the NWO will kill us all! Even Judy "space beams" Wood is technically qualified! | |||||
| #141 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| AKBastard | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 03:08 |
| ||||
Level: 5 CS Original | NO, you look at the GODDAMN TITLE OF THE FUCKING EPISODE. It's "Environmental Hysteria" nothing about GLOBAL WARMING. It was intended to mock those who think that we need to stop driving cars or flying in planes or turning on our heaters in the name of environmentalism. Who was the fake expert? Was it the original founder of Greenpeace or the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist?" The guy who founded the Weather Channel, John Coleman? (nevermind, he wasn't on that episode.) There's no conspiracy theory in saying that there's no reason into get into hysterics over climate change. It's an opinion. You comparing that episode to Jesse Ventura's shit just makes me want to pop about 10 aspirins. | |||||
| #142 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 03:32 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original | GW makes up a big part of what they characterised as enviromental hysteria. You still refuse to read the thread and review the criticisms of the episode. And people wonder why I repeat myself? Well I'm not going to repeat myself all over again here for you to just hand wave. Go look at my posts and follow my links I posted. Get this through your head, they used fake experts, they made many specific well known demonstrably false claims about GW. Years later Penn says his problem with GW is emotional and doesn't know the first thing about it and his skeptic and scientist friends make what he calls compelling arguments for it but he just can't bring himself to accept it. | |||||
| #143 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| AKBastard | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 06:41 |
| ||||
Level: 5 CS Original | "GW makes up a big part of what they characterised as enviromental hysteria." How much of that episode did you actually watch before you just got mad and shut it off? You clearly didn't watch it from start to finish, because they said as a matter of fact that climate change probably does exist. "Get this through your head, they used fake experts, they made many specific well known demonstrably false claims about GW." If you really did watch the whole episode, you should have no problem telling me who these false experts were and what these false claims were. I don't believe there was even one moment during that episode where Penn called global warming a hoax. | |||||
| #144 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 08:59 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original | FINIALLY someone's at least asking RELEVANT questions and making RELEVANT points! I'll reply a bit later in the proper thread: I suppose asking you to actually read the thread beforehand is too much to ask, especially the links I posted on page 1. (since you obviously still haven't done that). So I apologise in advance that I will have to repeat a few things. | |||||
| #145 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| AKBastard | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 09:29 |
| ||||
Level: 5 CS Original | I just looked at the logicalscience article. In the very first paragraph it claims that Penn and Teller claim that global warming was invented by hippie protesters when he in fact did not. The point about the experts that they had on that episode are fair, but on such a controversial issue as this one, it seems like a case of one person's opinion verses another's which I'm not surprised. That's not what I'm talking about now. What I take issue with is you saying that Penn and Teller are promoting "stupid conspiracy theories" or that no one here is questioning them just because of who they are. | |||||
| #146 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 09:31 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original | Ed, you're a fucking retard. Seriously you are the biggest moron to curse these forums since Nanos. | |||||
| #147 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 09:36 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #148 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Kaiser Falkner | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 09:38 |
| ||||
HAIL HYDRA Level: 6 CS Original | @Snobgoblin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg Their guest who cites a popular trend that obscures what he calls "cost-benefit-analysis" for how best to deal with climate change. He takes direct aim not at the existence of climate change, but rather the way it is portrayed and processed in media and popular culture. Hardly a fake expert. Here is a sample from an interview he gave with the new statesman
This particular guest from the episode illuminates exactly how one may maintain a position of "skepticism" and not be compressed into a position of "global warming denialism." Indeed, his entire position is that the debate is far too polarized and that it inhibits smart approaches to corrected many of the key issues at hand. This hardly constitutes denying that climate change exists, and we should ask why Penn & Teller have this guest on if their only agenda is to outright disprove climate change. Now, this is not to say that Lomborg's work has not been without error or issue, as is certainly the case, but that his political message is not one that merits a compression of categories in a polarized fashion. Now its fair to critique environmental skepticism on the basis that it does not take certain aspects of climate change seriously enough, and that environmental skeptics actually inhibit any positive change in the technologies and policies that contribute to climate change. And this characterized Penn & Teller's position pretty well, and is perhaps where I disagree with them most. The episode really takes aim at the polarized nature of the discussion that exists without really grasping the complexities of the chemistry involved that do warrant some pretty serious reassessment in our activities. If we look at Methane saturation in the high frequency band of the UV radiation, it gives us some pretty serious reasons for concern. This is, of course, not true for all environmental skeptics as Lomborg himself promotes continued and increased investment in Green Energy as a way to curb continued human contribution to climate change. Taken with the real message of the episode and the content of some of their prime guests (not to mention the fact that Penn & Teller call themselves Environmental Skeptics) it becomes clear that we are capable of two conclusions. 1) It is an unfair characterization to call the duo "global warming denialists" considering that their offical position and the subject matter of their episode is direct at the hysterics in the existing discussion and 2) to compress their position with global warming denialism ignores the very real distinctions that exist between environmental skepticism and global warming denialism. We do have a fair platform from which to criticize the episode and the position, that they are not taking some scientific evidence seriously enough and that their position inhibits some meaningful change in our behaviors, but it is fundamentally incorrect to compress their position with that of global warming denialism. | |||||
| #149 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Agent Matt | Posted: Feb 11, 2011 - 09:44 |
| ||||
Genuine American Monster Level: 70 CS Original |
| |||||
| #150 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||