Thread: Climate

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

indeed he is..LURCH came here,we went for a hunt...all good..Im pointing out he is being a sod...weather or not he chooses to pull his head in is up to him.
at present the last 10 posts he has made read like a looney tune. time to stop and think about life.
life is better than the alternative....drop all the negativaty and that warm sunshine on your back is pleasant,keep it and its trying to get you via melanoma

And yet post #63 dismisses any opinion that challenges the accepted narrative as a conspiracy theorist.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

And yet post #63 dismisses any opinion that challenges the accepted narrative as a conspiracy theorist.

Not dismisses any opinion. I said that a reliable indicator of a conspiracy theorist is the use of the term "current narrative" (as a pejorative term).
"Follow the money" can also be added as an indicator.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Not dismisses any opinion. I said that a reliable indicator of a conspiracy theorist is the use of the term "current narrative" (as a pejorative term).
"Follow the money" can also be added as an indicator.

A conspiracy theorist if they have a different view to yours.

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

A conspiracy theorist if they have a different view to yours.

depends on if "yours " includes a tinfoil hat does it not????

because if you look at it from far enough away.....believing someone has a conspiracy is conspiracy in and of itself.

thus its just easier to say someone is talking a load of utter bullshit and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

depends on if "yours " includes a tinfoil hat does it not????

because if you look at it from far enough away.....believing someone has a conspiracy is conspiracy in and of itself.

thus its just easier to say someone is talking a load of utter bullshit and be done with it.

I am going to make myself an actual 'Tin foil' hat. I have developed a crusty bit on the scalp despite wearing an ordinary hat, which it seems has not protected me from UV. A tinfoil hat will give full UV protection, be fully waterproof and reflect heat. If made with fold down flaps and veil it can double as a Faraday cage to block unwanted government brain programing

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

depends on if "yours " includes a tinfoil hat does it not????

because if you look at it from far enough away.....believing someone has a conspiracy is conspiracy in and of itself.

thus its just easier to say someone is talking a load of utter bullshit and be done with it.

Bit what if the person who believes in a different line of bullshit to yours is not wrong, does it make your line of bullshit right...? It's all perspectives and belief structures that get challenged makes it hard for people to accept a paragdeim shift

Sent from my SM-T225 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

A conspiracy theorist if they have a different view to yours.

Using MD's "utter bullshit" definition, yes, quite likely.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Not dismisses any opinion. I said that a reliable indicator of a conspiracy theorist is the use of the term "current narrative" (as a pejorative term).
"Follow the money" can also be added as an indicator.

I disagree, proving the persons position is incorrect and that an alternate position is correct is the only way to progress a discussion and to collectively learn. Creating derogatory references proves nothing of value. Along with 'Conspiracy Theorist' the term 'Antivaxer' is another example of terms created to discredit. This type of reference is what gets these threads along with useful information banned
In my recent writings to Greenpeace regarding their anti farming stance, I have not called them Lemmings, Sheep, Lackey's or Cool Aid sippers. Using such terms would not promote any worthwhile exchange.

I remember here in the forum in a banned thread being branded an 'antivaxer' for a post in Feb 2020 where I stated that ' No effective vaccine will be found for C19' 'We know this because there have already been cases of patients fully recovered becoming re-infected in Japan. This shows us that if natural infection does not create immunity then it is impossible for a vaccine to produce immunity' No one challenged my science, which time and nature has shown to be correct

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I disagree, proving the persons position is incorrect and that an alternate position is correct is the only way to progress a discussion and to collectively learn. Creating derogatory references proves nothing of value. Along with 'Conspiracy Theorist' the term 'Antivaxer' is another example of terms created to discredit.
In my writings to Greenpeace regarding their anti farming stance I have not called them Lemmings, Sheep, Lackey's or Cool Aid sippers

You are likely correct MH, save for the people who simply declare themselves quite quickly as being irrational. The term "you don't negotiate with terrorists" comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Tahr

You are likely correct MH, save for the people who simply declare themselves quite quickly as being irrational. The term "you don't negotiate with terrorists" comes to mind.

What people and why now 'people' ?? Why not 'posts that are not supported by rational thought ??. Now we have the derogatory term ( environmental ) terrorist introduced here, in an indirect veiled form. Tell me what would happen if you ask the 'irrational' person to give proof of there position, (presuming that this person does not self identify as a woman ) ?