Environmentalist wakos quote

[carpro]

As Daisy continues to write her own rules for debate in this forum...

and make everyone else abide by them.

As has been amply shown,in this case context would not have changed the meaning of these stand alone quotes. They said it. They meant it. Their meaning is clear.

Your arguments are specious and an effort to cover your inability to deal with the subject as brought up by Revmitchell.

 

[Daisy]

As Daisy continues to write her own rules for debate in this forum...

Um, supporting your contention with evidence is not a rule or technique made up by me; it's standard in debate. I'm surprised that you object to it; although, on second thought, I can see why you would...

...and make everyone else abide by them.

Uh huh, asking is the same as making....obviously, someone is trying to change the subject. Oh, yummy red herring!

As has been amply shown,in this case context would not have changed the meaning of these stand alone quotes. They said it. They meant it. Their meaning is clear.

It hasn't been shown at all, let alone amply, that context would not have changed the meaning. You and Rm have asserted that this is so, but without any evidence.

Your arguments are specious and an effort to cover your inability to deal with the subject as brought up by Revmitchell.

Nonsense, I haven't made any arguments apart from asking for the original context or supporting evidence that Ms. Stewart and Mr. Benedict are extremist wackos.

 

[carpro]

Nonsense, I haven't made any arguments ...

That is exactly the point.

 

[Daisy]

That is exactly the point.

Then you've contradicted yourself. Arguments can't be specious if they haven't been made.

Still can't deal with the evidence request?

 

[carpro]

Then you've contradicted yourself. Arguments can't be specious if they haven't been made.

You only argument has been "context".

In your mind that may not be an argument at all. To my mind, when it comes to Daisy, that is the entire argument in this case and it is specious.

 

[Daisy]

You only argument has been "context".

That's a pre-argument, really.

In your mind that may not be an argument at all. To my mind, when it comes to Daisy, that is the entire argument in this case and it is specious.

Right, asking for actual evidence that the quotes are not out of context is specious - everyone should just take your & Rm's word for it.

So what about it? Have you all found the original context yet?

No? Whoohooo! Quotes out of context!

 

[carpro]

That's a pre-argument, really.

Right, asking for actual evidence that the quotes are not out of context is specious - everyone should just take your & Rm's word for it.

So what about it? Have you all found the original context yet?

No? Whoohooo! Quotes out of context!

I've always known the source and context. You would too, if you were actually interested in honest debate.

I'll go a step further. I believe you also know the source and context. But you'd rather play games than comment on the subject.

 

[Daisy]

I've always known the source and context.

Then why not forego the insults and evasions and cough up?

You would too, if you were actually interested in honest debate.

Actually, I would also know it if you were interested in honest debate as you would have shared it upon first request.

I'll go a step further. I believe you also know the source and context.

The source is listed, but I could not find a copy of it to see the context, as I mentioned before.

But you'd rather play games than comment on the subject.

No, that seems to be your favorite game - insult and evasion - or as you like to term it "pulling chains".

Since you claim to have it, why don't you be a good adult and share it?

 

[carpro]

The source is listed, but I could not find a copy of it to see the context, as I mentioned before.

There is no custom in debate requiring a debater to cite any more than their source. Context is the duty of the responder.

Try harder.

Hint: Kyoto Protocol.

 

[Filmproducer]

While I do refer to such statements as wacko I think it is obvious the context. However, in the op I in no way placed the statements in any particular context. I left the statements to stand for themselves. You have the opportunity to agree with them as being wacko or to disagree. But what has happened is as a result of my opinion of these statements being placed in no particular context, I have been treated as if I have kicked somebodys puppy. I have been accused of placing them out of context, and accused of twisting the statements of these people like a crooked politician, which by the way would disqualify me as a Pastor.

Debate means to make a point and counter point. But does not include attacks, harrassment, badgering, pursuing, accusing, or misrepresentations.
What goes on here is most certainly not debate. And when adults have to be called down for the personal attacks then what does that say? I have had to put three people on my ignore list because they intentionally follow me around and attack me. Yet I havent seen any more than a few ,if any at all, substantial posts that were not a direct attack on me or one or two others.

I have been called a dinosaur, a crooked politician, unqualified as a Pastor, I lack the gifts of a Pastor, and to many others to remember at this point. Interestingly enough some have tried to back up and say that they didnt say what they were exactly quoted as saying.

We are all very passionate about what we believe in. But this is unnecessary.


May God Bless you all !:thumbs:

Rev,

Since you quoted me, you must mean me. If you read further I apologized for any misunderstanding. I do not have time to "follow" you around the BB, nor would if I did. FTR, I was not personally attacking you or your ministry. I did have a problem with the OP, which I have addressed. You used these quotes with no reference to their proper context or any context at all, hence the reference to possibly switching careers. How do expect to debate if you leave out the most pertinent information? The problem with the OP is that you called these people environmentalist wackos for their quotes, but gave no reference for the quotes, and no the citation does not count. Now I have repeatedly brought up the proper context of the quotes, i.e., the Kyoto. You have yet to respond. In fact I have repeatedly asked whether you, or anyone else would consider President Bush an environmentalist whacko, since he has also publicly agreed with the Kyoto? Context is everything, and in this case so is lack of it.

Now, if you would actually like to debate the Kyoto......

BTW, Carpo what is the subject brought up by the Rev that I have not addressed? It takes more than one quote to make someone whacko. Now should they have worded their statements differently, yes, most definitely, but I do not find it wacky to take precautionary measures, rather than reactionary measures, to protect the environment. When it boils down to it that is the root of what they were talking about, (taking precautionary measures to combat global climate change without waiting for a consensus in the scientific community on the cause/effect of global climate change). Apparently neither does President Bush. What other quotes do you have by these people to make them whacko? Surely there is more than what has been said about the Kyoto, and I want an actual quote, not a paraphrase by someone else.

 

[carpro]

The "context" tactic is considered to be an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. It is the burdern of the respondent to prove that the meaning of the quote would be changed if placed in "context". Otherwise, it's not something they should even bring up.

http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

20. Accusation of taking a quote out of context: debater accuses opponent of taking a quote that makes the debater look bad out of context. All quotes are taken out of context—for two reasons: quoting the entire context would take too long and federal copyright law allows quotes but not reproduction of the entire text. Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. The classic example would be the movie review that says, “This movie is the best best example of a waste of film I have ever seen,” then gets quoted as “This movie is the best...I’ve ever seen.” Any debater who claims a quote misrepresents the author’s position must cite the one or more additional quotes from the same work that supply the missing context and thereby reveal the true meaning of the author. Merely pointing out that the quote is not the entire text proves nothing. Indeed, if a search of the rest of the work reveals no additional quotes that show the original quote was misleading, the accusation itself is dishonest.

 

[Filmproducer]

Carpo,

It has has been pointed out numerous times that the Rev provided no context at all, therefore according to your own post it is not up to the responder to provide the proper context.

Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position.

Now if we look at the original quotes both dealt with global climate change, and more specifically the Kyoto. Now neither author is saying that all science is "phony", or that the science does not back up theory of global climate change. Without the proper context this is what it appears they are saying, though. What they are really talking about are the PROACTIVE MEASURES of the Kyoto, and the benefits derived from them, rather than having SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on the CAUSE/EFFECTS of global climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. As stated before context is everything. In order to have a proper debate there must be a context in which to debate.

 

[carpro]

Carpo,



Now if we look at the original quotes both dealt with global climate change, and more specifically the Kyoto. Now neither author is saying that all science is "phony", or that the science does not back up theory of global climate change. Without the proper context this is what it appears they are saying, though.

You are over reacting. Nowhere is it even implied by the initial poster that either author is saying "all" science is "phony". That is your take on it and you are just simply wrong. As stand alone quotes, their meaning is so clear that no context is needed. How you got it wrong, I'll never know.

Furthermore, if you strongly believe such is the case, prove it. If you can't do that, and I know you can't, then you are using an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.

 

[Filmproducer]

You are over reacting. Nowhere is it even implied by the initial poster that either author is saying "all" science is "phony". That is your take on it and you are just simply wrong. As stand alone quotes, their meaning is so clear that no context is needed. How you got it wrong, I'll never know.

Furthermore, if you strongly believe such is the case, prove it. If you can't do that, and I know you can't, then you are using an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.

prove what? You are not making any sense. The OP did not imply ANYTHING at all. He provided ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT, whatsoever. That my friend is an "intellectually dishonest debate tactic". You cannot debate if there is no context in which to debate. What exactly is the Rev wanting to debate, if not the quotes themselves? That is all he posted. I am missing just exactly what argument you, and he believe we should be debating. I have provided ample eveidence of the context quotes, and yet neither you, nor he, respond to it. Oh sorry, you did incorrectly say it failed, but other than that you have not said anything at all, other than the quotes speak for themselves. If they do, what exactly are they saying, because I am certainly not seeing it. Please enlighten me, afterall I am one of those "lazy liberals" you frequently metion. I must be stupid too because I surely need you to explain the argument here, not to mention the "stand alone" quotes.

What exactly do the quotes mean, according to you? Ms. Stewart said, "even if the science is phony", what exactly would the average person think she meant, if they had no idea she was referring to the Kyoto? Benedict said, "even if there is no scientific evidence to back up the greenhouse effect", again what would the average person who did not know Benedict from Adam, think he was talking about? If the Rev had given the proper context, not just a mere citation giving credit to Benedict for the quote, others would see that Benedict was not saying that there is no scientific evidence to back up the greenhouse effect, but that there was not a scientific consensus, and that regardless there needs to be a global climate change treaty, i.e., the Kyoto. Now if their support for the treaty makes them whacko, why are not others who also support the merits of the Kyoto whacko, (for example President Bush)? Afterall, they are lending support for the same thing.

 

[carpro]

prove what? You are not making any sense. The OP did not imply ANYTHING at all.

What exactly do the quotes mean, according to you?

The opening post is quite clear. The poster believes those two people he quoted are wackos. I understand it was closer to an outright declaration than an implication, but there you go.

It is his opinion. If you disagree, make your case and stop whining about "context". The best way I can think of for you to make your case, if you have one, is to place the quotes in "context" (if it means that much) and prove him wrong. That would be intellectually honest and productive as well.:BangHead:

The ends justify the means, according to me. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Filmproducer]

It is his opinion. If you disagree, make your case and stop whining about "context". The best way I can think of for you to make your case, if you have one, is to place the quotes in "context" (if it means that much) and prove him wrong. That would be intellectually honest and productive as well.

Ah yes, now we are getting somewhere. As I have already repeatedly done this, I guess all one has to do is go back and look through the thread for the answer. However, for those who are too lazy....

What is wrong with a proactive or precautionary response to global climate change, rather than a reactive response? Why is it whacko for some to support this proactive response, (the Kyoto), and not others, (namely Bush)? Even if Bush has not submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification, under his administration the US signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which is similar to the Kyoto, but without the same enforcement mechanism. Once again, is he, or his administration whacko for taking a proactive approach to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change?

 

[carpro]

Ah yes, now we are getting somewhere. As I have already repeatedly done this, I guess all one has to do is go back and look through the thread for the answer. However, for those who are too lazy....

You did?

Is that what this is?:

"Not that it matters, but Rev. have you ever heard of the KYOTO agreement? Did it even occur to you that Richard Benedict is a former US ambassador, who helped negotiate international protocols such as the KYOTO? Seems that you have a very real knack for taking things out of context, maybe you should switch careers."


As I said, their real message is that the ends justify the means, and if they have to use phony science to get what they want, it's OK.
After all their opinions are the only ones that matter and all they really want to do is take care of the rest of us poor ignorant slobs.

Instead of wackos, they appear to be just more of the intellectual elite class that believes they know whats best for the rest of us and they'll lie, cheat, or steal to prove it.:thumbs:

 

[Filmproducer]

You did?

Is that what this is?:

"Not that it matters, but Rev. have you ever heard of the KYOTO agreement? Did it even occur to you that Richard Benedict is a former US ambassador, who helped negotiate international protocols such as the KYOTO? Seems that you have a very real knack for taking things out of context, maybe you should switch careers."


As I said, their real message is that the ends justify the means, and if they have to use phony science to get what they want, it's OK.
After all their opinions are the only ones that matter and all they really want to do is take care of the rest of us poor ignorant slobs.

Instead of wackos, they appear to be just more of the intellectual elite class that believes they know whats best for the rest of us and they'll lie, cheat, or steal to prove it.:thumbs:

:laugh: Funny how you go back to my initial post, and do not address my subsequent posts, especially that last one. :thumbs:

I take it then that you also believe Bush to be a whacko, or one of those "intellectual elites". I'll have to remember that in the future. Just wondering, since when is being precautionary equivalent to lying, cheating, and stealing? You obviously have a very real problem with the Kyoto and/or the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Can you please address these problems? That really is at the heart of the matter, and what these quotes were really talking about. Please explain in detail, if you can, why the ends do not justify the means. Keep in mind that even Bush and his adminstrtion does not agree with you.

 

[Gina B]

Stalker FP.

Sounds like a really good film title.

"Tonight on Stalker FP, internet politics take a real-life twist as Reverand M. turns a corner and finds himself face to face with none other than FP herself!

Cut to both standing there looking at each other suprised, then each pulls out a keyboard, twirls it around, they slam them on the (oddly enough) nearby conveniently placed desks, and start typing...sweating...typing...

Ok, I apologize for the interruption. Back to the scheduled program!

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Daisy]

A lot of this is a rehash of what Filmproducer so aptly said.
*** note to self: read the responses before responding***

The "context" tactic is considered to be an intellectually dishonest debate tactic.

Yes, it is dishonest to take statements out of context to make it seem as though the speaker or writer was making a point that they were not. It is known as "quote mining."

It is the burdern of the respondent to prove that the meaning of the quote would be changed if placed in "context". Otherwise, it's not something they should even bring up.

If the context is known, yeah, but if the person who posted the quote knows what the full text is and refuses to provide it when they easily could, then they are trying to win imaginary points rather that have an honest discussion.

http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

20. Accusation of taking a quote out of context: debater accuses opponent of taking a quote that makes the debater look bad out of context. All quotes are taken out of context—for two reasons: quoting the entire context would take too long and federal copyright law allows quotes but not reproduction of the entire text. Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. The classic example would be the movie review that says, “This movie is the best best example of a waste of film I have ever seen,” then gets quoted as “This movie is the best...I’ve ever seen.” Any debater who claims a quote misrepresents the author’s position must cite the one or more additional quotes from the same work that supply the missing context and thereby reveal the true meaning of the author. Merely pointing out that the quote is not the entire text proves nothing. Indeed, if a search of the rest of the work reveals no additional quotes that show the original quote was misleading, the accusation itself is dishonest.

I cannot do a search of the rest of the text because the rest of the text is unavailable. Of course, you might have noticed that I have not claimed that the quotes do misrepresent - I have questioned whether they do. It's a legitimate question.

You claim to know the context and to be withholding it. It is abundantly clear you are not interested in an open discussion on the topic or you would provide it.

[aside]You, carpro, might want to pay particular attention to numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 14 & 15 [/aside]