|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Gang ah jee: anyone who asserts or describes anything does so from a particular perspective, a perspective informed by their version of "common sense" and a multiplicity of other usually socially-constructed variables -- not to mention manifest and latent sociopolitical interests. Everything.
As you graphically illustrate through your ignorance and stubborn, arrogant refusal to recognize this, not all of us are self-conscious about it. You still seem to believe that disinterested information-production exists. So very, very pre-twentieth-century of you, Gang ah jee. Easy to understand when you so casually and sweepingly ignore and indeed dismiss the twentieth-century's most powerful philosphical shift, "the literary turn."
Moreover, you seem, too, in this ignorance, to believe that just because I propose that your "scientists" also write what they write on global warming and its alleged human causes from an identifible and not the mythical disinterested perspective, that I am somehow denouncing the entire thing as a hoax or a lie. That's your all-or-nothing pouncing for you.
You seem so eager to force everyone to see how the so-called Exxon-funded position is so clearly someone's political agenda, and at the same time so equally unwilling to even admit to the possibility that the other side has its surface and subsurface political biases and agendas as well...well, again, here we are at another impasse.
You have fallen back on the prosecutorial position because you are unwilling to go where I suggest. You would rather dominate the debate by dominating the questions and insisting that we discuss them and only them. And usually, at the end of the day, that is what you tend to fall back on: arrogant dismissal, ridicule, or something else equally pathetic.
Unfortunately for you, I am not your witness, however. And if you want to make this your career, I strongly suggest you learn how to exchange views with scholars from other disciplines -- scholars who do not share your discipline's worldview on this or indeed any number of issues.
That will be all for today, Gang ah jee. |
short answer to gaj's question: no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bucheon: you may feel it necessary to dance to Gang ah jee's tune. Does not mean I will -- and I most definitely will not answer his questions as long as he talks past the issues I raise.
By the way, can you not see that he is not really asking questions in good faith anyway but continuing his argument through them? I think this is a crucial point. I exchange views with quite a few people, mostly off this board, and we do not usually see eye-to-eye on the issues. But there is a difference between someone interested in exchanging views and someone interested in winning their argument, Bucheon -- and it is as obvious a difference as a smile and a frown. If Gang ah jee were actually interested is seeing how what I see differs from what he sees, how they might fit in some areas, how and why they contrast in others, that might be interesting. But as it is, he has long ago decided that I would be his proxy Ann Coulter -- so, yeah, I will fire back, and match arrogance, until the West Antarctic Ice Sheet breaks away. And I suspect it will break away from natural and not man-made causes. But that would seem to get us away from the clash of personalities that always draws you into a thread and back into actual substance, would it not...? 
In any case, nice to see you again, Bucheon. Good to see you pop up from time to time and pronounce these things. While you are here, have anything at all to say about global warming...?
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:38 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh what a surprise Gopher, another lengthy, hand-waving non-sequitur. You are unable to make your case on anything other than special pleading.
Now, since you seem to rely so heavily on caricaturing the positions of your interlocuters, I'll just take this opportunity to restate my views.
1. There is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
2. It is a good idea to provisionally accept any given scientific consensus.
For your benefit, Gopher, I'll add in a third.
3. If there is good evidence that the scientific consensus is incorrect, the consensus should be revised or rejected.
I don't think for a second that scientific knowledge is infallible, and I accept that social factors can in some circumstances be salient in research. I even accept that with an issue like global warming, the possibility of this is increased. So, I'm open to the possibility of social factors influencing the research, providing the evidence for this is empirical and not just hand-waving.
Gopher has tried and failed to argue against point 1. He can only succeed by confusing 'consensus' with 'unanimity', which is not what the word means in this context. If I recall correctly, he accepts point 2. So we're at point 3. Gopher's argument is that the science behind the consensus on global warming is a social construct resulting from leftist and environmentalist movement dating from the 1970s, based on a foundation of military and industrial research. I'd like to see evidence of this that goes beyond idle speculation. Gopher, the ball is in your court here. And try to avoid special pleading and strawmen this time.
| Gopher wrote: |
| The twentieth-century's most powerful philosphical shift, "the literary turn." |
This almost made me spit coffee on my screen. You really don't know your philosophy, do you Gopher? Again, the postmodernist retooling of sophistry and solipsism is mostly irrelevant to both philosophy and science. The only people who think otherwise are those such as yourself who rely on it to shield their specious and unsupported arguments from well-needed criticism. Entire academic careers are built on this nonsense, remember.
Here's a question that you need to think carefully about, Gopher - what interests did postmodernism serve in the first place? Par for the course with your type of postmodern hack, I suspect that you've never even bothered to think critically about the origins of your parasitic worldview.
Last edited by gang ah jee on Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| ...nice to see you again, Bucheon. Good to see you pop up from time to time and pronounce these things. While you are here, have anything at all to say about global warming...? |
Guess the short answer to this question would be "no" as well, then...?
And Gang ah jee: if my views and arguments were so flawed and such self-evident failures, why do you need to keep appearing and responding at length, marshalling all you can to put them down by ridicule and whatever else occurs to you...?
Again, you remind me why your dept. and mine do not interact. Would produce nothing but two groups of people talking past each other. Indeed, if you truly represent people in yours, I doubt applied linguistics would even deign to appear at a historical or social-sciences conference.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:45 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| And Gang ah jee: if my views and arguments were so flawed and such self-evidence failures, why do you need to keep appearing and responding at length, marshalling all you can to put them down by ridicule and whatever else occurs to you...? |
Got any evidence for your claims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gonna address any of the issues I have raised here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Gonna address any of the issues I have raised here? |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| I don't think for a second that scientific knowledge is infallible, and I accept that social factors can in some circumstances be salient in research. I even accept that with an issue like global warming, the possibility of this is increased. So, I'm open to the possibility of social factors influencing the research, providing the evidence for this is empirical and not just hand-waving. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Gonna address any of the issues I have raised here? |
That is, directly, as a discrete recognition, and not buried in the midst of a post that deals with something else entirely -- and without sarcastic eye-rolling and other of your usual repertoire ("postmodern hack," "parasitic worldview," etc.)?
Do you want to talk or continue trading insults and fighting? Consider this a sincere question, Gang ah jee.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:59 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
And, finally, BLT: Where, BLT, did you ever get the impression that I aim to undermine "the entire global warming position?" I accept that rapid climate change (sudden ice ages) chronically occurs, for one. I accept that we ought to moderate industry.
I reject the anticapitalist, antimodernity, antiglobalization "the West is killing the planet!" hysteria, the assertion that human economic activities (usually read "American economic activities" or "if Antichrist had only signed Kyoto, flowers would be blooming everywhere and all pollution would have disapeared by now!") are decisively and incontrovertibly driving climate change, etc. etc. |
And the rest of us, the intelligent, let the science of global warming lead us to our conclusions, not our preconditioned responses to party affiliation and love of big business.
FACT: Global warming IS driven by industrialization.
FACT: Big business and the Bush Cadre have intentionally lied about the situation. This is unforgivable. It is a literal death sentence for many. Given the FACTS surrounding global warming, chaos theory and the history of the earth's climate and how quickly it can change, the intentional delaying and lying about global warming has been at a critical time. It is possible that the only chance we had is already gone. This is what the science tells us. When the entire global system can turn 180 degrees in ten years, wasting ten years knowing you are lying is something one ought to go to jail for. It is, in fact, treason. For a president to knowingly allow the nation to be damaged - whether now or in the future - to serve his own and his Cadre's interests over those of the nation and the world, is treason.
You can characterize these facts as hysteria, but it only proves you a fool. When a burgler breaks into your house, points a gun at you and has the trigger 1/64 of an inch from firing, you strike up a conversation with him as to whether he is really pulling the trigger, or just seems to be.
| Quote: |
| Al Gore's hyperbole notwithstanding, global warming scientists are fallable. The fact that you refuse to recognize this, |
Hyperbole? The world climate system can, and has, flipped in the space of ten years. Where is the hyperbole, you fool? And who ever said there was concensus on what exactly would occur? Or when? Or that every "fact" is perfect? You. You are the only person I have seen make that claim. I have never read it from any other source. Only you. Who's engaging in hyperbole?
| Quote: |
in addition to the special-interests angle, and that you and your ally here browbeat, ridicule, or dismiss as "irrelevant" anyone who does not feel 100% certain that getting on your noisy bandwagon is the right thing to do at this time only serves to convince me that I am right to question this and maintain a skeptical position.
|
That's as logical as saying I'm wrong simply because I call you an idiot. You are an idiot, but that has nothing to do with my veracity or accuracy, so to dismiss my comments because you don't like being called an idiot is, well, idiotic.
| Quote: |
| You and your coreligionists here, on the other hand: no more skepticism required. Everything is done and conclusively established. You are now propagating the faith -- and you are in denial about it. |
Nice. Make it about us, not the science. Good job, Dumbya! And smear us with the religious label to invalidate the FACTS. Brilliant! The only one using a religious mode of thought is you. Despite evidence so overwhelming that it literally cannot be ignored, you do. That is the very definition of faith-based belief.
Fool.
The FACTS are thus:
1. You are trying to smear GW research as biased. Yet, you offer no proof. None.
2. We know for a fact that the anti-GW science is virtually all lies and bullshit. It was bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobile and almost all flatly false. NONE of it was science. There little peer-reviewed science against GW.
3. The Bush White House has intentionally mislead by altering science papers and muzzling scientists.
You have NOTHING. Quit painting us with YOUR brush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting new direction here, Gopher. You seem to be saying 'I'm not going to produce any evidence to back up my speculation that eco-Stalinism has hijacked climate science until gang ah jee starts being nice to me'. If I recall correctly, this is exactly the kind of special pleading that Meegook used to use in the evolution thread.
And for the record, I don't think for a second that scientific knowledge is infallible, and I accept that social factors can in some circumstances be salient in research. I even accept that with an issue like global warming, the possibility of this is increased. So, I'm open to the possibility of social factors influencing the research, provided that the evidence for this is empirical and not just hand-waving.
Last edited by gang ah jee on Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| ...nice to see you again, Bucheon. Good to see you pop up from time to time and pronounce these things. While you are here, have anything at all to say about global warming...? |
Guess the short answer to this question would be "no" as well, then...?
|
you would guess correctly, and I said as much on another thread. The exchange between GAJ and TUM was pretty civil and interesting.
The reason I took Gang ah jee's "side" is his arguments are a lot easier to follow and he seems to have a better grasp on the subject. And hell, you might know more (i really don't know) but he certainly articulates his argument better for us ignorant people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and some good news (though a couple of months old).
Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 1:42 p.m. ET Jan. 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims � moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.
Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.
Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world�s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been �widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.�
Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.
CEI acknowledged the change. �I would make an argument that we�re a useful ally, but it�s up to them whether that�s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,� director Fred Smith said on CNBC�s �On the Money.�
Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.
Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.
President Bush has opposed mandatory emissions cuts such as those required by the international Kyoto Protocol. He withdrew the United States, the world�s top carbon emitter, from the Kyoto pact early in his first term.
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader, has said he wants new legislation this spring to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Other legislators also are planning hearings on emissions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
And here are the CEI "Carbon Dioxide is our Friend" advertisements mentioned in the article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av3g0
Last edited by gang ah jee on Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And Gang ah jee: if my views and arguments were so flawed and such self-evident failures, why do you need to keep appearing and responding at length, marshalling all you can to put them down by ridicule and whatever else occurs to you...? |
1) I'm fairly certain that "showing how your views and arguments [are] so flawed" is tatamount to a DEBATE.
Are you saying that people should continue to let ignorant people be ignorant?
2) A large portion of gaj's posts are calls for you to support your position. Sieging a city with a cardboard cutout of an army isn't really a siege after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...exactly the kind of special pleading that Meegook used to use in the evolution thread...hand-waving. |
You just cannot talk to me without insulting, can you? LOL.
I made a good-faith offering to stop arguing and start talking. I suspect we would agree on more than we disagree were we to work our way around the personality conflict. Too much to ask apparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the fallacy:
1. Person A asserts position X.
2. Person B asserts position Y. Position Y alleges that position X is motivated by political interests Pi1. However, B opposes Pi1 with political interests Pi2...so Y is motivated by Pi2.
3. Person B asserts that because position X is motivated by Pi1, X is dubious.
4. Assuming Person B�s assertion that �X is dubitable due to Pi1� is justified, which of course it is not, B fails to even attempt to explain why Y, motivated by Pi2, is not likewise afflicted with the same issues he uses to oppose X. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
