More on dishonest arguments


Aw, that’s so cute! I got a rise out of one of the global climate change deniers!

And this “DJ” had to ignore what I was actually saying and then jump in with another example of the type of dishonest argument that I was describing. He’s only parroting things that other people, the people who push him around and feed off his fear, have told him to say, things that have no bearing on the scientific debate and the search for solutions to the problem at hand. His misunderstanding of actual, valid scientific dissent makes a mockery of intelligent discussion.

Don’t worry, “DJ”! When scientists and politicians and the progressive movement comes up with the solution to the global climate change that humans (humans like you!) have caused, you’ll benefit from it just as do we. Unless of course your brains have exploded from having to deny that up is actually up and white is actually white.

Oh, and water? Still wet.

Yep, “DJ”, I’m dismissive and arrogant and I am, in fact, a vastly better human being than you. Why? Because you’re the type of “human being” that will deny that horses have four legs just because you’re bitter and angry and fearful. You’re feeling that way because daddy beat you and mommy ignored you and you know, deep down inside – no, wait, strike that, you wear it on your sleeve – that you’re a turd with a computer and you have no impact whatsoever on public discourse or human affairs beyond being a pawn of politicians and CEOs and religious leaders that promise you things they will never deliver in exchange for the only value you offer – a vote every so often and all the spare cash they can siphon out of your bank accounts.

Luckily, as a friend has pointed out, fevered postings of comments like “jon” and “DJ” are unlikely to affect the actual search for solutions. And, yeah, people are working on solutions because, dude, the evidence is in for most people who aren’t trading human civilization for money that they won’t actually be able to spend it – when – what they’re pretending to deny comes to pass.

What’s a better stance to take, when faced with the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community?

Standing with your thumbs in your ears and your eyes clamped shut, shouting “La, la, la, I can’t hear you!”

Picking apart the evidence until you can find small inconsistencies and then claiming it invalidates the whole thing?

Or realizing that the pattern that emerges from the multiple converging lines of evidence might be real and that we should move on to the search for a fix?

I can’t expect someone of such ideological-based blindness to have participated in something as social and wholesome as the Boy Scouts but I think their motto is perfect here: Be prepared. It’s, y’know, the position of strength, not weakness.

So you go and keep signing your paychecks over to companies like ExxonMobil, and mortgage your children’s future against your ideology (and I mean “children” metaphorically) while the adults take care of things.