Quote:
|
Originally Posted by grolsch
Ustwo, while I happen to agree with, you DO realize telling people that they lack the background to argue with you is a great way of ensuring they won't listen to you. You get more flies with honey...
|
I'm well aware, but I'm not trying to make converts out of the unwashed. I've had this debate to many times and for to long and I know how it goes.
Those who have made up their mind won't be swayed, they have accepted the limited data as 'truth' and its like trying to tell someone their religion is wrong. Those who are just worried about the media stuff, but understand they don't know will read what I say and might be swayed if they start to think about the issue, they won't be insulted and get their back up to prove me wrong.
I've had the techincal debates before with a 'true believer' but those are just fruitless as most true believers don't have much more understanding beyond a website. Claims of the hottest temperatures in 20 million years (yea I did get a bit technical on that one) to some of the dire predictions of storms and the like can be refuted but they require a lot of work and research. Anyone can make a claim, but instead of proving their claim they expect you to disprove it and frankly its not worth the time. Its not like they see it and say 'oh ok, now I get it.' its ignored and they move on to the next distorted factoid for you to disprove.
So I give my take on it, let those who are unsure decide, and go on from there.