Your example only covers a single instance. My point is that over the course of ~two decades not a single warmest has accepted the denier debate challenge. The conclusion you cannot draw from one isolated example becomes clearer and clearer as the sample size grows into the thousands upon thousands. If the warmists had facts on their side at least *one* of their cabal would have stepped up to the plate by now. Monkton is just one of countless numbers of deniers who is itching—champing at the bit—to debate. Yet not a single warmist can be found to appear in a large-format venue to accept the challenge.
The idea that thousands could have the facts on their side yet to a man and to a woman refuse to debate is not reasonable. The refusal is bc they know they’d get their heads handed to them on a platter. That’s why the idea of reeducation camps holds such allure for them. Rather than having the embarrassment of being called cowards—or of being whipped in a debate—they could simply silence the dissenters in the good old facist way.
The idea that it’s impossible to discern what underlies that approach is not rational. It’s not at all difficult to figure out what’s going on—in fact, it’s a piece of cake.
Even after saying all that. And even IF I agreed with your premise, which I don't. I would STILL insist that yu can draw no conclusions from it as to the nature of the truth.
We know what the truth is because WE listen to the science. Not because they refuse to debate us. Do you see the difference?
I don't know how many more ways I can say it. By the way. I thought you were leaving. I'm pleased that you didn't, don't get me wrong.
I'm Doc Holliday. I can go all and and night and then some.
Let me try another approach. Let's set aside your theory of disproving our Q theory based on our so called "refusal to debate."
Imagine this if you will. A roomful of people that are discussing a questionable issue. They are all in general but varied levels of belief in that issue. They are discussing it and trying to learn as much as they can about it because it is potentially VERY important.
During the discussions, people who have no idea what is going on but are curious, enter the room. They begin peppering the "cult members" with accusatory questions. They call them cult members koo koo birds, larpers, goofballs, conspiracy theorists, etc. You get my point.
It isn't just one guy. It's a long line of them. Some downright hostile. Then along comes little old fantasywriter. Acting just as they do. How do you think you should be received? Politely? Offered a cup of tea? To sit in my favorite chair? I would say to you. Dude. Do what I did.
Read along, study up. Look at the things offered to you. Then make up your own mind. Either buy into it, or don't. If you buy into it,then by all means, pull up a chair. If you don't be on your way, and leave the cultists to their insane business. They aren't bothering anyone.
But you say you have done that. You have done your research and you have made up your mind. You find it bunk, hogwash, a larp, a cult, a bunch of doody head meanies.
So what do you do about it? You lean up against a wall and shoot spitwads at everybody and try to convince them they are idiots.
I don't see the logic in that. Can you explain? Are you hear to convince or be convinced. Those are the only valid reasons to be here that I can see.
Did you like my LARP?
Mom says I'm the best LARPER ever.
MOM! MEATLOAF!!