I want to say a small bit about the Facebook disagreement I had today with someone on the acidification of the Ocean. The post in question was about ocean acidity increasing and the concerns people should have over this issue. I agreed and mentioned mitigation, being specific to mention Deep Iron Injection as a positive method. Having recently read the MIT research updates on their DII projects, I was encouraged by the results and happy that the science was properly tiered and being tested before they published the final results. Perhaps I made a mistake though when I decried the desire to approach the climate with an "all or nothing" approach as Senator Mark Warner has espoused for all issues in a very recent email reply to me.
For some reason the individual who posted the link took affront by my reply. He had the temerity to actually ask "what the hell is wrong" with me. He then went on to denounce my preferred method of mitigation. At first, he attacked it with links to a separate method that is in fact overly broad and not at all subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. The second post (yes, it was the same person who loves to spam links dealing with only superficially similar issues) did deal directly with the DII I espoused but he linked a political policy document that used scientific data from 2001-2007 which was not only out of date but in itself admitted to being incomplete.
I honestly have gotten tired of discussing scientific topics with people only to find after substantial time that they don't have the basic understanding of science or even proper methodology to intelligently discuss the matter. I was reminded of the argument where his "expert" friend claimed the Scientific Method couldn't be followed in Climate Science. Something he agreed with but leading scientists disagree with and I share their disdain for that type of "flat earth" science. I tried to correct his erroneous blending of methods and get him to look into the actual current research and put forward an invitation for him to lay out his own basis of scientific understanding so I would know how to address his concerns. Remembering the old discussion where his expert claimed familiarity with the UHA research but yet was ignorant of the authors position on Climate Change, I mentioned that previous exchange and said that he should make sure of his facts before jumping into a debate.
As typical, the individual attacked not my position but my intelligence... another of his tropes that he loves pointing out in others but refuses to see himself use. In his several posts regarding the issue, he asked an expert to chime in, an associate professor and renown meteorologist who just so happened to be the same one who ignores the Scientific Method and claims anyone not a Climate Scientist has no say in the matter. Upon recognizing the name, I remembered he was the EXACT SAME PERSON who claimed to have a personal connection with one of the two UHA researchers we had previously discussed regarding this very issue. Mind you, this intimate personal knowledge apparently doesn't extend to the researcher's views on the Cult of Climate Change... so I called him a fraud.
How can someone claim this personal connection but yet be ignorant of the individual's expertise in the very field that you claim expertise yourself? Experts in a closed community almost certainly know one another and their positions. His lack of knowledge here made me think him either a fraud in not being who he claimed, or being a fraud within the Cult whose claims are bolstered by political muscle instead of scientific study and merit.
I'll note here that at the same time the poster's wife asked me for my educational basis so that I could discuss this knowledgeably. I gave a generalized overview of my education. I didn't mention getting my first professional certification at the age of 14 nor did I give specific certifications, titles, or degrees but instead gave a general rundown of my education from the age of 12 to current. His wife posted hers as well although she was very specific with even class names. I was shocked to learn that she was several years my junior based upon her graduation date until I remembered I was two years younger than average upon graduation. I sent her a PM congratulating her on her education. I didn't point out to her that my education continues as she ended hers. I thought that she was rightfully proud of her education but unlike myself it seems she has ceased her education and settled into her sedate life. I felt it was a pity.
Her husband, the poster, took offense that I dared to doubt his expert. I made a mistake and posted the wrong name of the two UHA researchers as to who I had quoted on the post from 5 months ago. At the time I didn't realize I had named the wrong member of the pair. Still, we entered a scathing argument where I tried to get him to go back and see where his expert had finally failed to support his argument and had resulted to his "if you aren't a Climate Scientist you have no say" argument. The oddity is that he has never explained what he thinks a Climate Scientist is. In fact, both the expert and the poster have claimed the expert holds positions and titles that don't reconcile with the university or public profiles of the scientist in question. This is still something that makes me suspicious. On the internet one can claim to be anything and this expert sets off all my alarms by claiming to teach classes at the university where he's not listed as the professor. My own background makes me believe either he is a simple internet fraud or a narcissistic elitist with delusions of grandeur. If he is the real scientist, then his mental instability would make any conclusions he arrives at suspicious in that he would be unable to accept any evidence that would not conform to his thesis.
Having written that last sentence I realized something. Perhaps he isn't the internet fraud I thought. Perhaps he is who he claims to be but through elitist narcissism he is driven to make claims that are exaggerations of the truth. Perhaps he does know the other scientist but only in passing instead of the intimate knowledge to which he eluded. If I think about him as if he were an archetype this hypothesis makes sense. Perhaps the original poster simply doesn't realize that his expert "friend" bloats his own importance beyond the truth. He is quite probably highly intelligent but socially dysfunctional. I am beginning to get a clear picture of the "liberal elitist college professor" that I suspect him to be. If my guess is correct, the scientist and poster met online in a political discussion and flattered each others ego into becoming online friends. While he would be unlikely to accept anyone on an intellectual level as an online friend he would certainly accept those he saw a politically elite as himself. Of course this is all only conjecture and on the fly since I just thought of it and have never met the individual in person.
Anyway, I'll get to the end. The poster again decided that discussing the issue wasn't worth it and resulted to taunts and demands. His utter glee and insistence that his friend "kicked your ass" in the last exchange that I decided to leave the discussion. His repeated use of the phrase "I win" got to me. I told him that he can crow about winning all he wants and that I was leaving the discussion. Since he was already insulting me, I told him to feel free to denigrate me online as much as he wishes. To me it reveals a lot about his character and honestly I'm "enough of an asshole" to not care once he get's to that point.
He finally must have realized I had left because he eventually took my advice and looked for that old post on his timeline. Predictably, he did find it and even posted a link to it. The problem was that it revealed my mistake in naming the wrong co-author. He latched onto that mistake of mine as proof that my entire argument was void. I continued to read his posts although I wouldn't reply. It was like watching a small child revel in winning a contest in which only he was competing. I did send him a PM acknowledging my mistake in the name. I felt it only right.
After re-reading the post he linked though I saw that not only did I make his expert seem like a novice in the field, but another shared friend had come along behind and took it even further. Both the poster and his friend were shown to be ignorant elitist with no real grasp of the topic but they also showed the ability to be completely oblivious to their own words and contradictions. This is the same person I have wondered about being too toxic. Normally I find these people entertaining because eventually reality sets in. With the poster in question, even when all evidence proves him wrong he simply ignores it and switches the argument around to something nobody was even speaking about.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Debates and time
I am going to revive my blogging and stop using my computer journal. I've lost the journal twice and have decided that this platform is fine for what I intend to post. I know there has been quite a lapse but here we go.
Today, as usual, I ended up carrying on multiple debates on Facebook with many different people. While a few of them turned out in the typical fashion, there was one that was educational for those involved and another that had someone admitting there was nothing factual to their opposition to Trump but it was personal... maybe me telling them that it was okay to feel emotional or personal about a candidate is quite alright. One is still hanging out there but I don't know if the people have left it or will respond later.
Still, I was debating something that has irked me since the story became public two days ago. A woman wrote a letter claiming to be a major individual working within a campaign. Her letter went on to explain how she had supported that candidate until recently. It was an "open letter" that was a hit job on the candidate full of supposed facts and revelations that could derail a candidate. The problem is, I decided to research the person instead of the article. The woman in question has been openly against the candidate specifically in her personal life for at least 6 months and her professional social media accounts reveal that she was latently against the candidate. This brought her claim of being part of his organization into doubt so I checked out her employment history. She never worked for the politician in question. Her resume says she worked for a PAC in the past, her resume didn't specify a name which I found curious. Apparently, she is currently unemployed but volunteers her time locally.
Take these two simple facts that she opposed the candidate for at least the last six months and that she never worked for the candidate as she claimed and her story unravels to the point of pure fiction. The problem I run into, half the liberals on my feed post links to some article with her letter claiming it is true. Of course I reply with what I have found out. Even on the "Occupy Democrats" facebook page I found people who saw my research and admitted that the woman was obviously lying for publicity. I began to see other posts with this story with people spreading my research as well as some information I hadn't discovered. Putting it all together, the woman appears to have been professionally hurt by this candidate and the letter wasn't only for publicity but also for simple vengeance. I knew some fanatics, those without reason, and those who hated the candidate would believe anything so I was prepared to repeat the process of education and hope for the best.
Today though someone I have respect for posted another article. I simply posted the same information about her background and expected his intelligence to lead him to the truth. Instead the post devolved into him disputing my research and trying to link the candidate to criminal behavior. When I pointed out to him that his position was ironic because while he refuses to believe in the criminal behavior of one candidate that is under FBI investigation, he was quick to believe the rumor of the other candidate's theoretical illegal activity, he through out the red herring defense and stood like a blind rooster above a roasting pan crowing about how "he wins". He then insulted me and told me to just "quit posting right now".
Needless to say, it tweaked me. This is a man who prides himself on using reputable sources but I had pointed out to him that his article citing criminal activity came from a well known liberal leaning site, NPR. Although NPR was founded to be nonpartisan, it long ago lost the right to claim impartiality. I proceeded to open a simple google search and started linking articles with quotes for him to read. Prefacing this argument, I explained the problem with NPR. They are blindly "liberal leaning" and believe all reporters are the same. With one exception, they have a huge problem with their reporters keeping their bias and opinions out of the news. I shared about 6 or 7 links backing up my position and then realized I was at the bottom of the google search page. Proper debate form says time to go no further and give him a chance for rebuttal.
After this barrage of articles, the man who claims he is a speed reader who has shown he can post as many as 6 article links in 5 minutes while claiming to have read them has yet to respond. At this point it's been about an hour and he hasn't responded but it is in his nature to always "get the last word" and never leaves a post, even one he agrees with, to follow his at the end of a topic. I had another discussion with him earlier today in which he claimed a couple of times that he "won" and went off the rails. There is absolutely 0 possibility that he would leave this alone so I'm sure he's trying to scour the internet for something to dispute my arguments and most likely he will try to either ignore my point or totally misconstrue what I've said to prove a different point. The irony that he likes to quote common literary and political mistakes while constantly using them seems lost to him and his wife.
I sometimes wonder why I engage in discussions with him because they always end up in one of two ways. Either he insults me and cries winner or he completely twists, misunderstands, or ignores my points so they fit whatever argument he makes. Part of me wonders if he is a toxic part of my life and someone I need to cut out or if the mental exercise he sometimes invokes is worth the childish rebuttal and rhetoric.
Today, as usual, I ended up carrying on multiple debates on Facebook with many different people. While a few of them turned out in the typical fashion, there was one that was educational for those involved and another that had someone admitting there was nothing factual to their opposition to Trump but it was personal... maybe me telling them that it was okay to feel emotional or personal about a candidate is quite alright. One is still hanging out there but I don't know if the people have left it or will respond later.
Still, I was debating something that has irked me since the story became public two days ago. A woman wrote a letter claiming to be a major individual working within a campaign. Her letter went on to explain how she had supported that candidate until recently. It was an "open letter" that was a hit job on the candidate full of supposed facts and revelations that could derail a candidate. The problem is, I decided to research the person instead of the article. The woman in question has been openly against the candidate specifically in her personal life for at least 6 months and her professional social media accounts reveal that she was latently against the candidate. This brought her claim of being part of his organization into doubt so I checked out her employment history. She never worked for the politician in question. Her resume says she worked for a PAC in the past, her resume didn't specify a name which I found curious. Apparently, she is currently unemployed but volunteers her time locally.
Take these two simple facts that she opposed the candidate for at least the last six months and that she never worked for the candidate as she claimed and her story unravels to the point of pure fiction. The problem I run into, half the liberals on my feed post links to some article with her letter claiming it is true. Of course I reply with what I have found out. Even on the "Occupy Democrats" facebook page I found people who saw my research and admitted that the woman was obviously lying for publicity. I began to see other posts with this story with people spreading my research as well as some information I hadn't discovered. Putting it all together, the woman appears to have been professionally hurt by this candidate and the letter wasn't only for publicity but also for simple vengeance. I knew some fanatics, those without reason, and those who hated the candidate would believe anything so I was prepared to repeat the process of education and hope for the best.
Today though someone I have respect for posted another article. I simply posted the same information about her background and expected his intelligence to lead him to the truth. Instead the post devolved into him disputing my research and trying to link the candidate to criminal behavior. When I pointed out to him that his position was ironic because while he refuses to believe in the criminal behavior of one candidate that is under FBI investigation, he was quick to believe the rumor of the other candidate's theoretical illegal activity, he through out the red herring defense and stood like a blind rooster above a roasting pan crowing about how "he wins". He then insulted me and told me to just "quit posting right now".
Needless to say, it tweaked me. This is a man who prides himself on using reputable sources but I had pointed out to him that his article citing criminal activity came from a well known liberal leaning site, NPR. Although NPR was founded to be nonpartisan, it long ago lost the right to claim impartiality. I proceeded to open a simple google search and started linking articles with quotes for him to read. Prefacing this argument, I explained the problem with NPR. They are blindly "liberal leaning" and believe all reporters are the same. With one exception, they have a huge problem with their reporters keeping their bias and opinions out of the news. I shared about 6 or 7 links backing up my position and then realized I was at the bottom of the google search page. Proper debate form says time to go no further and give him a chance for rebuttal.
After this barrage of articles, the man who claims he is a speed reader who has shown he can post as many as 6 article links in 5 minutes while claiming to have read them has yet to respond. At this point it's been about an hour and he hasn't responded but it is in his nature to always "get the last word" and never leaves a post, even one he agrees with, to follow his at the end of a topic. I had another discussion with him earlier today in which he claimed a couple of times that he "won" and went off the rails. There is absolutely 0 possibility that he would leave this alone so I'm sure he's trying to scour the internet for something to dispute my arguments and most likely he will try to either ignore my point or totally misconstrue what I've said to prove a different point. The irony that he likes to quote common literary and political mistakes while constantly using them seems lost to him and his wife.
I sometimes wonder why I engage in discussions with him because they always end up in one of two ways. Either he insults me and cries winner or he completely twists, misunderstands, or ignores my points so they fit whatever argument he makes. Part of me wonders if he is a toxic part of my life and someone I need to cut out or if the mental exercise he sometimes invokes is worth the childish rebuttal and rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)