This is exactly why Hines is being called out as a lib bullshit artist
He knows that I was not trying to say he is antiscience but that he will use selective science to bolster his views and dismiss others.
It is the same thing he does with media sources. He will pick any source (person, website, tv station) to use as a quote when it strenghtnens his point of view and will dismiss that source when it doesnt.
You are a dishonest, disingenuous spin doctor Hines and we all see it:youmad:
I'm dishonest for using your own words against you? I had no idea what you were trying to say because you continually struggle to make clear, concise points.
Please provide evidence of your accusations. I asked you to do that last time, and you refused, just continued to harangue me.
I see you Hines:youmad:
Claim you were right when you are wrong, facts be damned
Ask for evidence and then twist and deflect it, you never admit to being wrong.
It took a while but I figured that you are just a slightly smarter version of Mob
and having an honest debate with you is not even possible. So in lieu of that calling you out on your bullshit is the better option.
Also lol to this
"The refusal to admit something as scientifically accepted as climate change is mind boggling."
It is only scientifically accepted because those are the studies you have chosen to accept as legit and you have dismissed
the ones that show it is mostly bogus.
You are dishonest Hines and the people that read your posts see it.
So........nothing to back up your continued insinuations that I'm dishonest? I believe that makes you the dishonest ones sirrah.
Additionally, the scientific community does accept climate change. I had a feeling you would bite at that little bit, and you didn't disappoint. Way to double down on your disbelief in science.
And here is another example of you trying to use a study that is flawed as "proof" of a "fact" that may be a tad overstated.
You look for the most exaggerated studies that "prove" your point and will stop the research right there even though it makes no
sense that 22 vets are killing themselves daily.
https://msrc.fsu.edu/news/media-misleads-military-veterans-suicide-study
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/01/444999996/the-number-22-is-there-a-false-narrative-for-vet-suicide
We see you :youmad:
Try to be honest and fair in your reporting, I realize that goes against your principles of presenting disinformation and I know
that you cant stand to be wrong but try anyway.
This portion is especially funny, because I apologized for something less than two weeks ago. I misread something that JavyBaez posted and apologized in the next post. I guess that's another instance of you being dishonest.
You continue to harangue me and call me dishonest without posting anything to assert your claim. Where's it at? If I'm such a bad faith actor, you should have multiple examples, right?
You know what, I'll give you this one. The VA's own study found that 22 veterans committed suicide a day back in 2012. That's the reason why Mission 22 is a thing.
[FONT="]The report shows the total is 20.6 suicides every day. Of those, 16.8 were veterans and 3.8 were active-duty servicemembers, guardsmen and reservists, the report states. That amounts to 6,132 veterans and 1,387 servicemembers who died by suicide in one year.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The VA's 2012 report stated 22 veterans sucumbbed to suicide every day – a number that’s still often cited incorrectly. That number also included active-duty troops, Guard and Reserve, VA Press Secretary Curt Cashour said Wednesday.
[/FONT]
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/va-...tatistic-included-active-duty-troops-1.533992
I used the VA's numbers that they quoted us from my time in the military. Oh well.
It's a fact. How so? The suicide rate was the first thing you have actually gotten me on. I used the 2012 VA report because that's what we were told when I was in the military.
Now, are you going to apologize for being dishonest when you said 'I always have to be right', when I have conceded this point and pointed out where I apologized to JB earlier?
Climate change is pseudo science? You are really outdoing yourself here buddy.
You still playing games HinesDeeper
Ok so you actually apologized for misreading a statement, big man...that is a supposed to be some kind of big step to prove that you have debated in good faith.:neenee:
You admit to being wrong about the 22 suicide thing because there was no way you could possibly dispute it.
So in fairness I can not say going forward that you "always have to be right"
Maybe more like When there are significant opposing views on either side of a debate or there are multiple interpretations to an event you "always have to be right" and will still selectively choose media that agrees with your point of view while ignoring others while disputing those same sources when they go against your point of view.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I could post shit tons of stuff on global warming and I already know we would go back and forth as there is plenty
to dispute the general notion of catastrophic global warming.
Though I guess you will say that "the scientific community accepts climate change" period and that I am trying to "move the goalposts" and deny it across the board just as somehow you claim I am anti science.
Because I would agree that climate change period has been happening during periods all throughout the Earths history and that is pretty well documented and studied. So if your only claim is that it is happening period then I am wrong for disputing that.
My claim and position is that it is being exaggerated and overblown by those who have political/financial reasons to do so.
Is this something you agree or disagree with?
