Whenever I post something that someone doesn't like, they attack me with "Where are your references?" (I usually don't post references because I don't think most people want to read them.) I then give them references to all the facts I posted and then they try to attack the veracity of the references themselves, or anything else they can about the post--other than the idea! (Opinions, etc.) I even see people attack other peoples grammar instead of challenging the ideas their posts talk about. I can understand attacking someone's grammar when something is unreadable, but a small mistake that is obvious? Why attack that?



I understand some people might want references, but why not just ask politely instead of attacking because they don't like the ideas presented?



Look at the Clean Air Act for instance. People have posted how it says that factories that upgrade have to also upgrade their pollution controls also. Doesn't anyone think anymore? Don't all the people that assume this is a wonderful thing because they heard about it from a liberal source that is tied to the "environmentalist groups", realize that it doesn't affect any new factories? Don't they realize that old factories that didn't upgrade before the act, because it was too expensive then, won't do it now when it is significantly more expensive with the new legislation? Don't they also know that, since it is an impotent piece of legislation, if Bush gives factories the option of upgrading without adding extra pollution controls, he is overriding something that currently does nothing? And then they attack Bush for opening up the flood gates for factories to pollute. When I point this nonsense out, I have been called names and such, but no one has argued about the ideas of this "fraudulent" environmental piece of legislation. No, it's not bad for the environment like some other "environmental frauds", but it doesn't really do anything either. And claiming it is great legislation and that it will save the environment, when air pollution levels have been going down every year for the past 30 years or more without it, is nonsense.



Please understand, the above argument is one I made based on logic and the statements made by "environmentalists" in previous posts. I was arguing with their statements that directly contradict themselves, not the veracity of the clean air act itself. Without a lot of data, that I don't have, I can't really argue for or against it. But I do know nonsense and illogical statements when I hear them!



Goes back to the "dumbing" down of the American public. (I better say that "dumbing" isn't a word or I will get attacked for that too!) Most people on this board don't even know how to logically argue points, like you I and I did earlier. People even see words that I didn't write, and attack me on those unwritten imagined words too! It was a lot more fun debating with you than it has been lately. So sad.



If you want to attack Bush, that's fine. Just make a good argument for it. (like he is spending too much money or something). When your own arguments defeat themselves, don't make them!



Fortunately, I have a lot of work to do with winter and the holidays coming, so you probably won't hear from me for a while. but, .... I'll be back! ..and, hopefully debate with some people that understand logic better!



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]