|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/24/2008 : 00:27:20 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
True, but after we start ragging on them is when they trot out, "it's a sign that you have won an argument when your opponents resort to attacking you instead of your argument," or even worse, something like, "I've obviously struck a nerve with my argument, because you're getting angry like all dogmatists do when faced with superior logic."
I'm just advising caution in declaring victory due to personal attack. It's one thing to say, "this piece is nothing but a slam on Gore." It's quite another to say, "this piece is nothing but a slam on Gore, therefore the author cannot refute the AGW hypothesis." Surely you can imagine a person who doesn't actually care about AGW one way or the other but who wishes to score political points with the right by butchering poor ol' Al. |
If they had a response to his argument, they'd present it.
In your scenario we have already responded, in detail, to any argument presented.
Anyone who can't follow that distinction would never have understood the basic concept of rational argument anyway.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
Gore's energy use
