If you don't believe in (recognize) white privilege why the fuck are you on a Democratic Forum?

[Scootaloo]

299. Well, we're both presenting opinions, and not data.

My position revolves around the latter of the two, where if you reject the compiled, assembled data, and do so without any ability to present a compelling counter-argument also based on data - basically, if you look at evidence and just go "NUH UH!" - then i will consider you a moron and dismiss you. As i said this is different from simply being wrong.

It's not a question of rejecting different viewpoints, or dismissing opinions counter to my own, as you and Psephos have apparently been trying to claim. it's not an an attempt to block out counter-arguments, but rather to excise non-arguments. Ideas and opinions and arguments that have no basis in fact or evidence, or that are so hopelessly scattered and askew, or whose conclusions are so wild that they might as well have no basis fact or evidence (The famous "the banana is curved so god made it!" argument from Roy Comfort, for example - bananas are indeed curved, but to jump from that to an ancient Hebrew deity being the mastermind behind them is... er... moronic.)

These positions tend to set the discussion backwards. They're destructive. We have overwhelming evidence of climate change, coming from pretty much every branch of science that involves field work, verified independently, from all around the world. What progress can we possibly[ make with this data, if we bring inhofe into the discussion?> What great, helpful insights is he going to give us to help us consider a next move to respond to the situation all the evidence clearly shows?

Answer, nothing. he would be worse than a non-controbutor, he would work as a disrupr, to undermine and force the discussion backwards, and attempt to scuttle the whole affair. he would be ranting that it snowed i nthe winter somewhere so it can't be getting warmer. he'd also probably demand explanations about the big bang and evolution too, just for good measure, even though it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Thus, it is better to just dismiss Inhofe out of hand entirely, dismiss his entire line of "arguing" and just sidestep that guy because he's a moron.

Now if we want to talk about emotional responses to "Old Yeller" okay, we can bring Inhofe in and his opinion will be as valid as anyone else's.