The Republican Party

I think we'll do a "part 2" to this debate, sir. It's just TOO COMPLEX to be discussed in only 50,000 characters. Here I go again. Well, well, well. First, I'll wrap up your incompetent arguments from round 3, than I'll go ahead with round 4. Kind of a potpourri of rebuttals, if you will. Let's go for it. After you post your link to the thing about FDR and the New Deal, you state that climate change isn't important and that we can't do anything about it. Do you hear what you're saying, sir? Before, you stated that climate change was natural. Now, you concede that it exists. I can catch your slip-ups just as well as you can catch mine, sir. As for what we can do about it- well, the answers are pretty simple. Use less water, less electricity, recycle. Saving energy does not mean we're reducing our economies. It simply means that we're growing our economies. Alternative technology options can't just be found by industry- whatever that means. Are you proposing that we use fossil-fuel powered machines to produce solar panels? That would be like feeding a cow her own milk. Instead, we should use solar panels and wind turbines to power the machines that produce solar panels and wind turbines. The answers are clear, sir. Might I remind you that Democrat Al Gore is a climate change advocate, whereas his opponent, George Bush, Republican, is not. maybe you ought to go see An Inconvenient Truth and awaken to reality. Here's some ways to reduce Climate Change, all of which are sensible: https://news.nationalgeographic.com... https://dailyplanet.climate-kic.org... I looked up Lewis and Curry, sir. Here's some of the first things that came up- some articles disproving their fraudulent claims. Posting a Climate Change skepticism article is like posting a Flat earth article. You can say it, but it isn't true: https://skepticalscience.com... https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com... The denial of climate change is as insane as the denial of evolution. We can see it happening. To answer your quandary about the Little Ice Age, I'd like to point out the key word- being "little". The Little Ice Age was a colder period after roughly 1500. That was the time when Russians needed fur coats. It was not technically an ice age. It was by no means a severe ice age, such as the one that involved woolly Mammoths. And our continually rising temperatures are not the result of the end of that cold period- to the contrary, if the Little Ice Age is over, which it has been for several centuries, then our temperatures should stay relatively constant, and not rise little by little, each year. You might note that the temperatures started rising near the Industrial Revolution- when coal started being burned. This is not rocket science, sir. You cannot deny the effects of CO2 on our atmosphere. It traps sunlight and makes everything hotter. Here, have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.nasa.gov... Now don't tell me NASA is wrong, OK? The answer to your second question is simply that you don't need factories to produce CO2. That's like saying you need cavemen who can build a fire for there to be fire. Fire existed before us. We just discovered it. Anyway, you don't need to know how the CO2 got into the atmosphere It probably came from volcanoes or fossil deposits or some other Carbon deposit. All that matters is, it was there, and the Earth was a real hellhole. Not a very nice place to live in. Here, take a look into real science: https://www.nasa.gov... My solution of moving is not against the poor. People who are in a dangerous area should move out. They could look for the cheapest apartment possible. They could walk by foot if they wanted to. Of course, a better solution would be to improve slummy neighborhoods and educate them about the danger of guns- but you Repubbos would never do that, would you? Instead of improving Detroit, let's keep it Anarchic and give all the residents guns so they can defend themselves. I see. You're not looking for a solution to the problem. You want to prolong it. Why have poor people move up in life, to better places? Have them fight it out on the streets and kill themselves. How practical- for rich people. I know that most criminals don't get their guns legally. But making them illegal would be a smart step, really. Think about Meth. You can obtain some- but if a cop sees you with it, he arrests you. That's called INTENT. it doesn't matter if you smoked the Meth or not- all that matters is that you had it and it can do harm to people. Making guns illegal certainly wouldn't keep all criminals from obtaining guns, but it would make finding them a lot harder, and it would make holding one out in the middle of the street a criminal offense. Say our criminal wants to shoot some people up, so he goes to his local gun shop, where he usually gets all his killing machines, but it's closed. Will he be willing to search through the Black Market and risk getting caught? It all depends on how determined he is. What do you think laws are for? They're to stop things from happening. laws can't stop crime. Crime will never come to a complete halt. Laws just REDUCE it. Do you want more dead people- or less? That's not a loaded question. It's a question that makes perfect sense. It might be loaded up with simple logic- in which case, it's like a gun loaded with bullets. Deadly, and highly effective. I don't think I've committed any logical fallacies. Maybe an Ad Hominem. maybe not even that- because Ad Hominem fallacies are insults designed to strengthen an argument. I'm not calling you a selfish, greedy jerk to strengthen my argument. That insult has very little to do with my argument. It's not an Ad Hominem, just a plain insult. I think they spice up debates quite a bit. Even if I am making some Ad Hominems, they're the least meaningful fallacies you can point out. You can do better. or can you? Is Australia an authoritarian government to remove all guns from its citizens? No, it's a great country, and it has a bunch of ruthless outlaws in the Outback who shoot endangered species like kangaroos. Maybe the Government should destroy all its weapons, too, just to reassure people that it's not hiding anything. Or maybe people could just make the choice to be less violent. That'd be nice. And it could happen if people have will power. I have explained in great detail why all your points are wrong. I expect you to do the same. The 1980s were a bad period while Ronnie Reagan was in charge. Ever hear the term "Reaganomics?" Look here, I implore you. Wikipedia points out what a loon Ronald was with his Conservative stuff. Look at this. He was a complete failure. Not for rich people, maybe. Look at this. Reaganomics 101: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.vanityfair.com... Now, on to round 4: I said that a fetus is TECHNICALLY human. It's our species. But it has no emotion, no senses. The eyes and ears don't start working until the fifth month. Would you save an embryo? At some point, it's just a cluster of cells. We don't need more humans. It's wrong to kill an innocent human. It's not wrong to kill something without a fully developed mind that hasn't even been born yet. Once it starts moving around, you shouldn't take it out. Once it can hear and see, you shouldn't take it out. But there's a point where things start living. We just need to find that point. Are you against killing bacteria, for Gosh sakes? There's a point when fetuses are only three inches long. If a mother is fine with having an abortion, and she's positive that she can't support it, and she doesn't want to be forced to bring it into being and then hand it over to somebody else- then it's her choice. After all, she's a rational adult. The fetus is a fetus. I think that the baby would be grateful for dying and not being brought into this lousy world- that way, he won't have to know that Donald Trump exists. My article on sexism does make a real argument. To ban abortions is to strip a woman of her bodily rights. She should be able to do whatever she wants with her body. The argument is not counterfactual, it is not a Straw Man fallacy. It does not fabricate arguments. It is rational. It makes complete sense. Right wingers are inherently sexist. It's in your ideology. You're Conservative. You like the past. You loved the "Good Old days" when women stayed at home and didn't have careers. Don't you see? Sexism is one of the reasons why people are against abortion. They want the women to have more responsibility. You should be considered conscious to be considered murdered. In addition, your comatose patient metaphor is irrelevant because comatose patients are grown people with fully developed brains, and they've had lives, and families, and memories. However, your metaphor is somewhat accurate, because if somebody is comatose for too long, they have to be unplugged, because there's simply no hope for them and they're taking up hospital beds. Same with fetuses. The right to life is established at conception? A fertilized egg cell has the right to live? I'm not sure how you're able to set rules like this. It seems that your argument is based more on belief than on reality. "The fetus has the right to life therefore it has the right to life" is exactly the same as " the fetus has the right to life therefore they should be granted that right." You do not specify where the right comes from, or whether it is a rational right. You're making things up. OK. One more round, then part 2. I'll wait.