• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solar Radiation Management

He accepts only statements from governmental authorities, government-approved outlets.

No, I get all my information from inter-dimensional extra-terrestrials.
 
If we want to know the truth about anything, there is no substitute for thinking. Every news source has good and bad information. If you only trust mainstream news, and if you mindlessly accept everything in RationalWiki, then you will be biased and misinformed.

We have to fact check just about anything we read or hear, whatever the source. And don't check it with websites that have a similar bias.
What always gets me about "RationalWiki", aside from its ironic status as the left's go-to questionable source to impeach everyone else's questionable sources, is that the articles don't even bother with the pretense of objectivity, thoroughness, supporting evidence, or any of the things one would expect from rational analyses. They read like the profanity-laced screeds of angry YouTube commenters. Nebulous, hyperbolic criticisms backed up by precisely nothing.

Yet they're cited as though we're supposed to value nebulous, hyperbolic criticisms backed up by precisely nothing. And not only this, we're supposed to value these criticisms of other websites so much that we summarily reject anything the websites say as untrue--unworthy even of consideration.

In the words of a famous doctor: "How about 'no', you crazy Dutch bastard."

Yeesh. Lefties, eh? :roll:
 
Yes, almost as weird as Righties, eh?
 
What always gets me about "RationalWiki", aside from its ironic status as the left's go-to questionable source to impeach everyone else's questionable sources, is that the articles don't even bother with the pretense of objectivity, thoroughness, supporting evidence, or any of the things one would expect from rational analyses. They read like the profanity-laced screeds of angry YouTube commenters. Nebulous, hyperbolic criticisms backed up by precisely nothing.

Yet they're cited as though we're supposed to value nebulous, hyperbolic criticisms backed up by precisely nothing. And not only this, we're supposed to value these criticisms of other websites so much that we summarily reject anything the websites say as untrue--unworthy even of consideration.

In the words of a famous doctor: "How about 'no', you crazy Dutch bastard."

Yeesh. Lefties, eh? :roll:

Yes. They cite RationalWiki as though anything it says must be true. Or if it's a medical controversy, they cite ScienceBasedMedicine. The organized "skeptics" ALWAYS take the side of Big Drug.
 
Yes. They cite RationalWiki as though anything it says must be true. Or if it's a medical controversy, they cite ScienceBasedMedicine. The organized "skeptics" ALWAYS take the side of Big Drug.

Medicine is based on science.
 
Medicine is based on science.

That's the name of their website. That doesn't mean their opinions are more scientific or more correct.
 
They are more correct than pseudoscience sites.

Well that is a simple-minded statement.

I have yet to see you use logic in any of your arguments.
 
Well that is a simple-minded statement.

I have yet to see you use logic in any of your arguments.

Irony meters explode! Now, what is the nature of your, ahem, PhD?
 
Back
Top Bottom