Thank you for your content-free concession of defeat in this debate due to your lack of substance and ethics.wtf wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:14 amYou -- repeat YOU -- asked me why I mentioned it. I answered YOUR QUESTION. The answer is that it's such an obviously lame argument that I wonder why you didn't stop yourself as you were typing it. And why is that by the way? If a philosopher makes a weak argument that they know to be weak, and they make the argument anyway, whose fault is it that someone calls them out on it?
Once?
Yet his rhetoric and lack of perspective was eerily similar to yours.
Now that I've seen you lamely trying to defend what you already know was a weak argument, I'll be happy to ignore everything you write from now on.
I was struck by the similarity of his rhetoric to yours, and to so much of the loony climate rhetoric from the left.
I do understand your gist. You're a climate nut incapable of rational discussion of the issue. You made that perfectly clear. I was disappointed in you but now that I know, I'll stop reading your posts entirely. It's a waste of my time.
So did you find a place to park yet? And if you hate fossil fuels so much, what is you're trying to park? Electric cars burn MORE net fossil fuels than gasoline powered cars. You could look it up.
You clearly lied about reading my posts, thus, your threat to stop reading makes no difference to me. Your ignorance is demonstrated by your continued refusal to respond to substantive and relevant issues raised, and clinging to denial, obfuscation, stereotyping and ad hominem attacks, derailing any possibility of a reasoned debate. Given the weakness of your case, I guess that's all you have to offer.