This sub-forum needs to change.

[Feldoon]

Originally Posted by Millennium3

I support Clippo's suggestions also.

Originally Posted by Millennium3

but there seems no reason not to have areas where the standard of debate required is higher.

Originally Posted by Clippo

3. Rhetoric i.e method of debating, isn't allowed in the discussion.

:roll:

[mkpdavies]

It's up to Anthony if he completely reorganises his forum, because a few angry fascists are throwing their toys out of the pram, due to being unable to answer the questions against their new religion.

I couldn't care less.

I totally agree that the conspiracy theory that Exxon is behind everyone who sees the scam for what it is, is thrown into the bin.

I guess all subjects on the EU will have to be aswell, seeing as that is on of the biggest conspiracy FACTS that there is.

[Millennium3]

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

All I see hear is the MMGW hysteria promotion squad, are indeed fascist.

The intention would be to exclude this kind of remark.

[g hall]

Clippo

but I'm not going to continue to debate in other topics in this sub-forum until it raises itself from garbage level significantly.

Given that Clippo has contributed hugely to the garbage level who's he kidding

He sulks preens and abuses people and will not debate rationally and logically - personally I think he's mkpdavies acting as an agent provocateur

[Millennium3]

Originally Posted by g hall

Clippo

Given that Clippo has contributed hugely to the garbage level who's he kidding

He sulks preens and abuses people and will not debate rationally and logically - personally I think he's mkpdavies acting as an agent provocateur

Clippo, as everyone else, would also have to abide by any new rules set!

[Feldoon]

Originally Posted by Millennium3

The intention would be to exclude this kind of remark.

And thus removing all room for a personal opinion/conclusion.

As such this forum would be limited to just stating facts.

That means you can't say "This graph shows there may be a link between CO2 and temperature. Thus the CO2 might be a cause for the temperature variation".

You'd have to say "This is a graph. The graph of the temperature and the graph of the CO2 are similar."

And yes! We get a good ol' discussion going there.

[Millennium3]

Originally Posted by Feldoon

And thus removing all room for a personal opinion/conclusion.

As such this forum would be limited to just stating facts.

That means you can't say "This graph shows there may be a link between CO2 and temperature. Thus the CO2 might be a cause for the temperature variation".

You'd have to say "This is a graph. The graph of the temperature and the graph of the CO2 are similar."


And yes! We get a good ol' discussion going there.

No - my concern is not challenging the logic - it is attacking the person [ad hominem].

[Feldoon]

Originally Posted by Millennium3

No - my concern is not challenging the logic - it is attacking the person [ad hominem].

It's not an argument ad hominem.

It's a conclusion.

The difference is that Davies isn't saying "Clippo's wrong because he's a nutbar raving fascist!"

He's saying "This post seems to imply that Clippo wishes to impose draconian methods of controlling this subforum. This is similar to others in the open world who wish to impose such methods to control people in a fascist manner. I call these people envirofascists as a collective term. Clippo's post lends support to the idea that he would fit in this term".

Key difference.

[Millennium3]

Wikipedia definition.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

[John Carter]

Originally Posted by Millennium3

The intention would be to exclude this kind of remark.

Why exclude the truth?