If the BEST that climate change deniers can do is to point out in
“See??? Nyah nyah nyah!” fashion that 97 percent is not the PRECISE number for scientists that (insert level of belief in climate change, man’s role in climate change, available proof of man’s role in climate change, etc…) believe…please – you’re giving me deja vu to the days when cigarettes weren’t “absolutely proven” to be bad for you.
We – along with scientists and cigarette companies – knew cigarettes were bad for you LONG BEFORE it was “proven”. Come on…gimme a break.
The only thing the “proof” delay proved is that scientists are humans, and like getting huge piles of cash from X to say/not say something.
AND:
One of my favorite bits of antitheist nonsense is the antitheist’s version of the religious refrain that “the only people who are truly saved are X” where X = a specific religion, as supplied by resident antitheist truth-teller (well, sort of) Penn Jillette:
“The only people with true morality are us, the atheists.”
What you mean “us”, illusionist?
As for 97 percent not being the precise number for “scientists who believe climate change is happening and is significantly influenced by man”, perhaps…
But that’s only because some scientists:
– Haven’t stated such a belief and/or
– Are the same “See, it’s fine!” minority (and no matter WHAT stats you look at, they ARE in FACT a minority) that cigarette companies were able to pay enough to get away with poisoning peoples’ lungs DECADES after they KNEW they were doing so.
ALSO:
Why do these new Durex dancing tights go baggy at the…errr…nevermind.
BUT:
Here’s a good question: So, anything mentioning or referencing Nazi Germany in any way is automatically a logical fallacy…ummm…righhhtttt…
Here’s the thing: The reason mentioning Nazi Germany during an argument or debate, EVEN IF the reference is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND PRECISE, is a logical fallacy (supposedly) is:
It sheds an unfair or inappropriate light on X or Y, where X and Y are two sides to a debate or argument.
So, basically, this is saying “You cannot use propaganda to influence the outcome of a debate/discussion/etc.”
Which is a nice, cute little thought.
But think about it. Give it THE SLIGHTEST amount of thought.
A reference to Nazi Germany/Hitler/etc is an INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS prop move – even if it’s not meant that way.
So…you CANNOT use incredibly obvious propaganda, or it’s a logical fallacy (even if your point is, in fact, true)…BUT…
If you’re smart/manipulative enough to use NON-obvious propaganda to influence thought/outcome/etc…that’s fine?
Propaganda is propaganda. The “best” (that is to say, most effective) propaganda is NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS PROPAGANDA. It comes across as “fair” when it is, in fact, simply well-disguised propaganda.
So, it’s ok to use propaganda when it’s done subtly? If you can get away with a prop argument, it’s fine?
Bullsh1t. Write down all the “logical fallacy” descriptions, roll them up, throw them away, and just TALK…person to person, real to real.
Instead of making up all these rules, just stick with one, as paraphrased from Jim Carrey in ‘Liar Liar’:
(Exchange “breaking the law” with “trying to bullsh1t people”):
FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A good example of loud honesty.
Thank you.