News Stories

[Jaden]

End of the Pirate Bay as we know it....has come in an unexpected way...
they sold themselves!

Couldn't find an actual news story of it in English.

[X20A-Strike]

TPB sold anyway i'll wait till things are final, though things look grim for TPB

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

Wow. You're really "liberal." Who opposes climate change? It's been changing since forever. "That climate changing" is not contested but "as a result of human activities" is. Well, actually, it can't be contested, such vague and general thing like "human activities." Breathing is an activity, no? Oh no, that's politically incorrect because activities equal factories, cars... and the army, oh wait, that's politically incorrect too.



Amen.

Human activities in this case means pumping out green house gases. The evidence is there. CO2 levels are rising much faster than can be explained naturally. The only times there have been natural temperture changes that occur that quickly are as a result of catostraphic events such as a massive volcanic eruption. As I said before, the debate that's left is how bad and how fast.

As for that quote of yours, it's a reference to the fact that appearing as a talking head on a news program doesn't give you enough time to completely explain your position to the public. Maybe you should read the whole quote and not just the part you bolded? The part right after that especially:

"This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

At least I should give you credit for posting the whole thing, rather than post that one line completely out of context.

[Xellos-_^]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/bu...l.html?_r=1&hp

The Iraqi government originally tried last year to award oil fields to Western companies through a no-bid process. That prompted objections from a group of United States senators, who wanted greater transparency, and the plan was replaced with the auction, which had the effect of letting Chinese companies play a much larger role.

talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Who were the mushheads who object to low cost iraqi oil?

i thought the whole point of the iraq war was cheap oil?

[iLney]

@Kamui4356:

Ehh, but breathing produces CO2 too. So do testing nukes, missiles, running nuclear subs, letting carriers going around for kicks etc...

"the debate that's left is how bad and how fast." isn't that the only sole aspect we should look at before rushing this son of "cap& trade" bill. The climate is changing. So what? The sun rises in the East. The speed of light is ~300000km/s. I like eggs etc... We cannot make huge investments and great sacrifices on such flimsy ground.

About that small quote, I find it amusing that yo think highly of it. My liberal translator reads it as "as long as it fits our agenda, we can make up stuffs." And that comes from one of the leading "scientists" who supports cap and trade. Seriously, you don't need scientists; a shaman would be better.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

@Kamui4356:

Ehh, but breathing produces CO2 too. So do testing nukes, missiles, running nuclear subs, letting carriers going around for kicks etc...

The problem is burning fossil fuels is putting CO2 that was trapped in the ground into the atmosphere. It's CO2 that hasn't been in the atmosphere since long before humans evolved. Breathing? That's recycling CO2 that's already in the atmosphere. One is shuffling around greeenhouse gases that was already present, while the other is adding more.

"the debate that's left is how bad and how fast." isn't that the only sole aspect we should look at before rushing this son of "cap& trade" bill. The climate is changing. So what? The sun rises in the East. The speed of light is ~300000km/s. I like eggs etc... We cannot make huge investments and great sacrifices on such flimsy ground.

So basicly, you accept climate change but don't care? Fair enough. I consider such a position the equlaivent of burying one's head in the sand and pretending everything's fine though. The potential consequences of climate change far out weight the cost of trying to mitigate the effects.

About that small quote, I find it amusing that yo think highly of it. My liberal translator reads it as "as long as it fits our agenda, we can make up stuffs." And that comes from one of the leading "scientists" who supports cap and trade. Seriously, you don't need scientists; a shaman would be better.

It's a comment he made on a news program about how difficult it is to get the message about climate change out on such formats. He says that you need to balance what you say to get support while still being honest. No where does he say you can make stuff up. What he does say is scientists ne to simplify things, make it sound dramatic and scary, and say it with certainty to get their point across in media. Even if he did mean what you claim he meant, he's talking about how to handle media coverage. It's just an ad hominim attack and meaningless when weighed against overwhelming , peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Further, you're using a strawman by claiming I think highly of it. No where did I say I agreed with the quote, I dismissed it by pointing out the context. Though perhaps I should have called you out on the logical fallicy in the previous post?

[iLney]

Err... breathing is not recycling CO2. Where did you get that from? Now if you add a tree into the picture, it somewhat makes sense. But that's the tree doing the job, not us. We don't recycle jack. I, personally, worry about the tree more.

So basicly, you accept climate change but don't care? Fair enough. I consider such a position the equlaivent of burying one's head in the sand and pretending everything's fine though. The potential consequences of climate change far out weight the cost of trying to mitigate the effects.

If that is responding to this:

"the debate that's left is how bad and how fast." isn't that the only sole aspect we should look at before rushing this son of "cap& trade" bill. The climate is changing. So what? The sun rises in the East. The speed of light is ~300000km/s. I like eggs etc... We cannot make huge investments and great sacrifices on such flimsy ground.

then you need to stop taking the liberal pill. I'm offering a neutral position here, aka, I'm with you as long as you can prove that executing that son of a bill can have some meaningful result rather than providing the liberal placebo cookies. I'm not willing to pay more just to achieve a false sense of security.

About that dude: He's a scientist, no? You guys use him to back you up because he's a scientist or because he's a human being? Both? What happens if he decides he wants to be the latter more? Just to handle the media? Does he realize that the funding of his big-ass project are coming from average tax payers who happens to be heavily influenced by the media? And that his words during those interview matters more than his research thesis? Just scare the shit out of those morons, huh?

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Further, you're using a strawman by claiming I think highly of it. No where did I say I agreed with the quote, I dismissed it by pointing out the context. Though perhaps I should have called you out on the logical fallicy in the previous post?

pff... Do you think highly of it?

Logical fallacy? Logic only goes as far as its usefulness huh?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by iLney

Err... breathing is not recycling CO2. Where did you get that from? Now if you add a tree into the picture, it somewhat makes sense. But that's the tree doing the job, not us. We don't recycle jack. I, personally, worry about the tree more.

This discussion really belongs in one of the various climate change threads or in the newer "What do you do for our Earth" thread, but I just wanted to reply here. You know very well that what you're saying isn't realistic. Making statements like "but breathing produces carbon dioxide" is cute, but you know very well that the carbon dioxide produced from normal respiration can't compare to the carbon dioxide produced due to industrial processes. I'm sure that you're also very well aware that we're cutting down forests and polluting the ocean at a rather alarming rate. Those are two ecosystems that are considered very important in sequestering carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, and our activities are very likely inhibiting their ability to perform those activities.

Is our production of carbon dioxide (among other pollutants) combined with our damaging of ecosystems that would normally maintain the balance all something that is responsible for what's going on in terms of climate shifts? Maybe; maybe not. If you don't believe that it is, there's no amount of data that can convince you otherwise. However, knowing that this is the only planet that we know of that we're able to live on, I do believe that you'd agree it wise to play it safe. If there's even a slight chance that our activities are responsible, or that we can reverse the trends, shouldn't we take it? We're talking about energy restrictions and raised costs. This isn't sacrificing your first-born. Putting it into perspective, if the small sacrifices that you make now could potentially hold off the collapse of the various ecosystems that support our civilizations, don't you think it'd be worth it?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

Err... breathing is not recycling CO2. Where did you get that from? Now if you add a tree into the picture, it somewhat makes sense. But that's the tree doing the job, not us. We don't recycle jack. I, personally, worry about the tree more.

You breathe in air, your lungs absorb O2, then you exhale air with a higher slightly higher CO2 concentration. You're not adding CO2 that isn't already in the atmosphere. When you burn fossil fuels on the other hand, you're releasing greenhouse gases that have been trapped underground for millions of years. Now what happens when you do this? The Earth heats up similiar to the temperature it was at those millions of years ago when said gases were in the atmosphere. In short, we're recreating conditions that human grown crops are going to be less likely to thrive in.

If that is responding to this:



then you need to stop taking the liberal pill. I'm offering a neutral position here, aka, I'm with you as long as you can prove that executing that son of a bill can have some meaningful result rather than providing the liberal placebo cookies. I'm not willing to pay more just to achieve a false sense of security.

Except that you are not offering a neutral position. You're advocating ignoring scientific evidence because isn't not convienient. You ask for it to be proved when it has been. What more proof would be sufficient to convince you?

About that dude: He's a scientist, no? You guys use him to back you up because he's a scientist or because he's a human being? Both? What happens if he decides he wants to be the latter more? Just to handle the media? Does he realize that the funding of his big-ass project are coming from average tax payers who happens to be heavily influenced by the media? And that his words during those interview matters more than his research thesis? Just scare the shit out of those morons, huh?

When exactly did I quote him? You're the one who brought him up. Also any work he's done would have been peer reviewed. Even if he's a lying bastard when he appears on TV, that doesn't mean the actual research he's done is wrong. Now, do you have anything that would cast doubt on actual research that the guy has conducted? Not that it matters because you're the one who brought him up, not me.

pff... Do you think highly of it?

Not particurily, though he does have a point. You can't explain things in any kind of depth in the little soundbytes you get when you appear as a talking head on some news show. Though that's irrelevent as you're attribiting to me something I never said, hense strawman.

Logical fallacy? Logic only goes as far as its usefulness huh?

An attack on a person's credibity does not discredit the evidence they have to support their position. If you're going to participate in a debate you need to attack the arguement, not the person making the arguement. Hense, it's a logical fallacy.

[james0246]

I'm tempted to put this in the Silly/Odd News Stories from around the World or Laugh a Day threads, but it is just scary enough to be placed in this thread:

Oklahoma Rep’s ‘proclamation’ blames gays, porn, abortion for economic woes:

Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, probably best known for her comparison of homosexuality to toe cancer, has ignited controversy once again with her “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality,” a document that blames America’s current economic crisis on “our greater national moral crisis.”

The document blames “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse and many other forms of debauchery” for the country’s economic woes.

To rectify the problem, it suggests the following solution: “BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.”

What's next? Is she going to offer to start sacrificing some virgins?

[Antares]

Originally Posted by james0246

I'm tempted to put this in the Silly/Odd News Stories from around the World or Laugh a Day threads, but it is just scary enough to be placed in this thread:

Oklahoma Rep’s ‘proclamation’ blames gays, porn, abortion for economic woes:



What's next? Is she going to offer to start sacrificing some virgins?

How anyone like this got elected in the first place? I wonder what the constituents there are like.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You breathe in air, your lungs absorb O2, then you exhale air with a higher slightly higher CO2 concentration. You're not adding CO2 that isn't already in the atmosphere.

????? I take in O2, I exhale CO2. Where is the "C" coming from? Magic? Let cut this here. It's pointless. I don't want to explain the obvious even if it's politically incorrect.

When you burn fossil fuels on the other hand, you're releasing greenhouse gases that have been trapped underground for millions of years. Now what happens when you do this? The Earth heats up similiar to the temperature it was at those millions of years ago when said gases were in the atmosphere. In short, we're recreating conditions that human grown crops are going to be less likely to thrive in.

Wow. This is science?

Except that you are not offering a neutral position. You're advocating ignoring scientific evidence because isn't not convienient. You ask for it to be proved when it has been. What more proof would be sufficient to convince you?

What you offer are not scientific evidence. No one has ever proven that CO2 has anything to do with the changing global climate!!

When exactly did I quote him? You're the one who brought him up. Also any work he's done would have been peer reviewed. Even if he's a lying bastard when he appears on TV, that doesn't mean the actual research he's done is wrong. Now, do you have anything that would cast doubt on actual research that the guy has conducted? Not that it matters because you're the one who brought him up, not me.

I don't say his research he's doing is wrong. Like I said, his research doesn't mean jack in the media but the media matters. Even if his research leads him to many inconclusive results or results he doesn't like, he must not make up stuffs to push his own agenda.

Not particurily, though he does have a point. You can't explain things in any kind of depth in the little soundbytes you get when you appear as a talking head on some news show. Though that's irrelevent as you're attribiting to me something I never said, hense strawman.

You've just proven my case.

An attack on a person's credibity does not discredit the evidence they have to support their position. If you're going to participate in a debate you need to attack the arguement, not the person making the arguement. Hense, it's a logical fallacy.

Well, the guys basically claimed that he was willing to make up stuffs if interviewed. Why bother? That's how it works. Remember the Korean dude who made up his discoveries in some genetic stuffs, his research career is done. Even if he makes some groundbreaking discovery, no one will ever care. And if they don't care. there is no debate. And if there is no debate, there is no fallacy

This dude, on the other hand, is still useful to the liberal crowd. His research will be taken seriously by the science community however. But his research is not what the left is after. Oh well, can't blame him though.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Antares

How anyone like this got elected in the first place? I wonder what the constituents there are like.

Puritans. They try to rule every moral aspect of society but end up being inefficient hypochondriacs themselves.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

????? I take in O2, I exhale CO2. Where is the "C" coming from? Magic? Let cut this here. It's pointless. I don't want to explain the obvious even if it's politically incorrect.

It's already in the air. When you inhale, air fils your lungs, which then absorb the oxygen. You then exhale the air, which now has less oxygen, thus a higher relative CO2 content. The only CO2 released is what was already in the air you intially breathed in, or was previously in your bloodstream. Either way, you're only putting back what was already in the air. Remember, every atom that makes up your body comes from something you consumed over the course of your lifetime. You're not adding anything into the environment that you didn't take in at some point.

Wow. This is science?

No, it's a basic explaination of the difference. Science would be a lot longer, and likely involve a lot of numbers and graphs.

What you offer are not scientific evidence. No one has ever proven that CO2 has anything to do with the changing global climate!!

Yeah, I mean it's not like CO2 is a proven green house gas and that the earth's temperture has consistantly gone up since humans began burning large quantities of fossil fuels, reversing what had been a gradual cooling trend. That CO2 functions as a green house gas has been proven. That tempertures have risen as CO2 levels have risen is also proven. So we have a proven causation and a proven correlation. What more is there?

I don't say his research he's doing is wrong. Like I said, his research doesn't mean jack in the media but the media matters. Even if his research leads him to many inconclusive results or results he doesn't like, he must not make up stuffs to push his own agenda.

No, that's not what he was saying at all. The thing is science is rarely conclusive. The best it can do is say here's the evidence and this theory is what best explains it. The thing is most people aren't scientists. They want to hear x causes y or x doesn't cause y. Science can only say x likely causes y under condition z, or x likely doesn't cause y under condition z. What he's talking about is when you have a minute and a half to explain your position, you simply say x causes y because you don't have time to explain everything.

You've just proven my case.

Your definition of proof is quite strange as I never said I agreed with it, only that he has a point that you don't get enough time when appearing as a talking head to explain your position in any depth. Explaining what someone meant is not the same as agreeing with it completely. For the record, I agree witht he part that you don't get enough time as a talking head to explain your position. I disagree that the best way to address that problem is to exaggerate your position. Not appearing as a talking head at all would be the approach I'd advocate.

Well, the guys basically claimed that he was willing to make up stuffs if interviewed. Why bother? That's how it works.

Except that he never claimed that at all. Incidnitly here's his response to that quote. The quote itself is from nearly 20 years ago by the way and this responce is from 1995.

"In November, 1995, I debated Simon on Lateline, the Australian TV
equivalent of the US Nightline program, on the issue of the Chronicle
bet. In a segment they did not air, Simon charged that I advocate
exaggerating science to enhance the appearance of environmental
threats. To bolster this charge he resurrected an oft-quoted, but
usually out of context partial quote, from a Discover Magazine
interview2 in 1989 in which I decried soundbite science and journalism
by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to
cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., "being honest") or to present
all the plausible threats (i.e., "being effective"). During the TV
debate, months before Simon's APS News article appeared, I pointed out
that he was taking only part of the full quote and that part was
seriously out of context - this is the same source he "quoted" in APS
News. The full quote follows, where I have italicized what portions
of it Simon quoted and bracketed what I did not say but he attributed
to me in the APS News article:"

Remember the Korean dude who made up his discoveries in some genetic stuffs, his research career is done. Even if he makes some groundbreaking discovery, no one will ever care.

That guy was faking research data, and guess what, he got caught when his work was reviewed and now his career is over. Funny, it's almost like scientists have some sort of system for weeding out fraudulant research.

And if they don't care. there is no debate. And if there is no debate, there is no fallacy

We're debating right now and you continue to rely on logical fallacies. Do you have anything substantive to offer or are you just going to continue trying to link me to someone I never cited while conducting ad hominium attacks on said person?

This dude, on the other hand, is still useful to the liberal crowd. His research will be taken seriously by the science community however. But his research is not what the left is after. Oh well, can't blame him though.

Yeah I mean it's not like that research supports the left's position on the issue. I mean there's no way that position could be based on said research. No, it must be the other way around.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Except that it does involve interstate commerce. Unless you think all the building materials orginate locally? Also if it's accepted and has become the norm, why is it an issue now? Could it be because the neo-cons were kicked out and now can only do their damage at the state and local level?

If something is shipped across State lines to be sold in another State, then yes, that is interstate commerce. Building a house down the street is not.

A large amount of power is sold across state lines, which by definition and your own account is interstate commerce. Further, national regulations on commerce which apply to all the states also counts as interstate commerce. The federal government can't tell Arizona specificly that they need to abide by whatever regulations but they can tell all the states collectively that they do.

That would be incorrect. I read some (odd) history when the Fedzilla passed a law lowering the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System from 75mph to 55mph. The Fedzilla had no authority to force States to do so. What they did was blackmail States with highway funds, either lower the speed limit or lose your highway funds. Most States caved in, but not all. Montana was one that didn't.

So just because the Fedzillla can pass a law telling all States what to do, it doesn't mean they have the authority or power to force the issue.....unless they use blackmail.

[monir]

Who can guess what will be one of the biggest contributor of the green house gas in the next 20 years? It's the cows. I am very serious by the way.

I'll post the article later if I can find it.

[TinyRedLeaf]

^ The reports appeared some time back and, in my opinion, it's one of the stronger reasons for cutting meat consumption to appear in recent years. I can't find the original reports any more, but here are a couple of other articles related to the topic:

Cow farts 'harming the planet'

Oxford (Oct 13, 2006): Cows' farting and burping must be brought under control because they're causing global warming problems, a climate change expert has warned.

Just one cow gives off enough harmful methane gas in a single day to fill around 400 litre bottles, which is really bad for the environment.

The gas goes up into the atmosphere and makes the hole in the ozone layer bigger, worsening global warming.

Dr Chris Jardine of Oxford University says the British government must do more to halt the gassy problem.

And it's not just cows - sheep and goats also produce methane, which is 20 times more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide.

- BBC (Children)

Global warming culprits: Cars and...cows

New York (Dec 13, 2006): If you're worried about global warming or water pollution, you can blame cars and factories, the White House, and the oil companies.

Or you can blame cows and pigs. Yes, cows and pigs.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, in a report called Livestock's Long Shadow, says, "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

"The findings of this report," it says, "suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."

Cows do not add to the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

They do not run aground and spill crude oil. But they do ruminate — which is to say that they give off methane when they chew their cud and belch, and nitrous oxide and ammonia when they leave manure all over the barnyard.

So that pungent odour you smell on a farm? It's bad for the global environment.

Methane, while less prevalent in the air than carbon dioxide, is 23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas, the FAO report says. Do some maths, the authors say, and you find that livestock is responsible for 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas problem.

What's more, cows take up a lot of space, grazing on land that could feed many more of the world's people if it were used for crops. The FAO says grazing takes up 26 per cent of the land on Earth that is not covered by ice — 30 per cent if you count the land used to grow feed for the animals.

The FAO says the problem "needs to be addressed with urgency". But it says the good news is that "major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost".

Cows' diets could be modified, for example. Manure could be recycled; it's already dried and burned as a fuel in many poorer countries — and because it comes from animals, it counts as "renewable".

What complicates it, though, is that livestock is used for food. If you want to control greenhouse gases, will people be willing to eat less meat?

- ABC NEWS

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by ShimatheKat

YATTA! The Japanese Communists were helping them all along! DOWN WITH JCP!

You are half correct.

It is not just the Japanese Communists who are helping them but most Japanese businessmen, as well as some intellectuals. I am very certain those are not communists. They are doing whatever that benefits them most, whether it be monetary profits or political gains.

Members of every political party do help North Korea.

[Kakashi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It's already in the air. When you inhale, air fils your lungs, which then absorb the oxygen. You then exhale the air, which now has less oxygen, thus a higher relative CO2 content. The only CO2 released is what was already in the air you intially breathed in, or was previously in your bloodstream. Either way, you're only putting back what was already in the air. Remember, every atom that makes up your body comes from something you consumed over the course of your lifetime. You're not adding anything into the environment that you didn't take in at some point.

Not quite, CO2 produced from respiration also diffuses out of your lungs, so he's right in that regard.

I can see what you're getting at though. All living things respire so we can't do much about that, and like Ledgem hinted the CO2 given off is pretty minimal anyway. However the CO2 released when coal burns was last in the air when the dinosaurs ruled the Earth. This carbon has been trapped in 'carbon sinks' (in this case deposits of coal and oil) for millions of years and was effectively removed from the carbon cycle. Now it's being released back at a rate faster than it can be reabsorbed, and that's the main problem. We're slowly reverting the atmosphere to how it was millions of years ago. And there are things we can do about that.

Originally Posted by monir

Who can guess what will be one of the biggest contributor of the green house gas in the next 20 years? It's the cows. I am very serious by the way.

I'll post the article later if I can find it.

Not suprised, too bad we can't "blame the cows". The human population increase means more mouths to feed, and so inevitably intensive farming goes on the up as cows are stuffed with fodder to yield more meat.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It's already in the air. When you inhale, air fils your lungs, which then absorb the oxygen. You then exhale the air, which now has less oxygen, thus a higher relative CO2 content. The only CO2 released is what was already in the air you intially breathed in, or was previously in your bloodstream. Either way, you're only putting back what was already in the air. Remember, every atom that makes up your body comes from something you consumed over the course of your lifetime. You're not adding anything into the environment that you didn't take in at some point.

Dude.... This is wrong..... I mean, it's so wrong. What do you mean by "absorb" O2? I suppose that you must know about certain chemical reactions involved right? Like the famous: CxHyOz + O2 => H20 + CO2.....

EDIT: BTW, read this http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...arth-annually/

And no, I don't advocate a ban on breathing....

No, it's a basic explaination of the difference. Science would be a lot longer, and likely involve a lot of numbers and graphs.

I know, but there are no such numbers and graphs anywhere that back those claim!!!

Yeah, I mean it's not like CO2 is a proven green house gas and that the earth's temperture has consistantly gone up since humans began burning large quantities of fossil fuels, reversing what had been a gradual cooling trend. That CO2 functions as a green house gas has been proven. That tempertures have risen as CO2 levels have risen is also proven. So we have a proven causation and a proven correlation. What more is there?

NO! you.... arrg.... Those are just observations. And there are periods when the Earh cooled down and period when it heated up. And we still cannot explain it.

No, that's not what he was saying at all. The thing is science is rarely conclusive. The best it can do is say here's the evidence and this theory is what best explains it. The thing is most people aren't scientists. They want to hear x causes y or x doesn't cause y. Science can only say x likely causes y under condition z, or x likely doesn't cause y under condition z. What he's talking about is when you have a minute and a half to explain your position, you simply say x causes y because you don't have time to explain everything.

Why can't he just add? "I think..." "My guess is...." "...but I'm not really sure." He must be aware of the weight of his words. What bothers me most is his implying that disposing of all the doubts during the interview is acceptable. It's not!

Your definition of proof is quite strange as I never said I agreed with it, only that he has a point that you don't get enough time when appearing as a talking head to explain your position in any depth. Explaining what someone meant is not the same as agreeing with it completely. For the record, I agree witht he part that you don't get enough time as a talking head to explain your position. I disagree that the best way to address that problem is to exaggerate your position. Not appearing as a talking head at all would be the approach I'd advocate.

But I can infer, can't I? I mean, you fer

We're debating right now and you continue to rely on logical fallacies. Do you have anything substantive to offer or are you just going to continue trying to link me to someone I never cited while conducting ad hominium attacks on said person?

..... attack on what? I don't even know why you bring up this fallacy stuff. I just said that I found it was interesting that you thought highly of his action. And after defending him and everything, you came back and said I made a logical fallacy. I mean..... you just proved that I was right and then complaining about how I got it

Yeah I mean it's not like that research supports the left's position on the issue. I mean there's no way that position could be based on said research. No, it must be the other way around.

The thing about research is that you can conclude whatever you like from it.