January 25th, 2010

(no subject)

The following argument stemmed from a discussion on another journal and I wanted to see what a random group of people with varying abilities with logic would say.

All of human society is anti-natural, i.e. making humans be not-animal, so the current push to have people "be natural" or "do what's natural" is just pushing us to be like animals.

What is your opinion of the logic?

I agree that the conclusion follows from the assertion and the assertion is reasonably accurate.
I agree that the conclusion follows from the conclusion, but the assertion is flawed.
The assertion is accurate, but the conclusion doesn't follow.
The assertion is inaccurate and the conclusion wouldn't follow anyways.
The poll is flawed because...

Which one is true?

Gunslinger was espousing this logic.
Gunslinger was arguing against this logic.
Gunslinger was not involved in the discussion.
  • merig00

The ice have melted

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

So I have two questions.

1. What will happen first, the glaciers will melt or climate change aka global warming akak global cooling will get completely discredited?

2. Is it ok to outright lie to people to get them on your bandwagon because you think your cause is just?