This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
statements/views that do not require facts to be considered valid. Which is what you blasted outkast for supposedly not doing, yet you can't prove his method as invalid or his statements untrue.
Politics is about competing ideas in government. If an idea has no factual foundation, it is immaterial. I wouldn't trust a random person's opinion on brain surgery practices any more than I trust Outkast's views on global warming (or anything else, for that matter), as he is clearly uneducated and wouldn't be able to provide supporting evidence for his claims. Uninformed opinions are as good as garbage and deserve no respect.
It's more important for ideas in politics to be properly scrutinized, as they have direct consequences in the form of policy and law. Do you think that Outkast's ignorance on how money affects politics, for example, is of no harm? Outkast's personal influence may be minimal, but when an entire section of the population embraces and actively espouses bad ideas, we all suffer the results.
I didn't claim that failing to provide evidence proves a statement invalid. It does, however, render an argument unpersuasive. This is beside my initial point, though, which is that people like Outkast have not done the necessary research to justify being confident in their opinions. It's important to reign in confidence on matters that we're ignorant of lest we become another pawn pushing someone else's agenda.
This is nonsense, but even if it were true, it doesn't justify us mirroring such behavior.
To say that we should do nothing in response to global warming because it's inevitable is akin to saying that we should disregard our health because we're going to die anyway. If there is something we can do to slow the process, then the only moral thing to do is take that action. The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with your claim that Man has no influence on climate change, so why is your random opinion more valid than scientific consensus?
Come on, bud. If you were someone who reads, you wouldn't make the base-level spelling mistakes that you do with such consistency. You make these errors because you lack familiarity with the written word.
You just like to tote your mouth toward other users to pick a fight, but when you are asked to prove something you cower away? Sounds exactly like the mindset of a alchy dexxer.
I have no interest because you're human garbage and nothing can be gained from the interaction. But by all means, paint a fanciful illusion of victory in your mind if you like. Perhaps Mickey can give you some pointers on how to go about it.
