..and if neither the law or the facts are on your side,
wave your arms and pound on the table and shout
that the world is coming to an end unless everybody
obeys you immediately and forever. <grin>
Sorry to instigate latinophobia, I come from an
environment where precise nomenclature uses
a lot of Latin terms because they have well-defined
denotations and connotations.
The English for 'tu quoque' is "So's your MOTHER."
Feel better?
The attempted constructive contribution is that a study
of the FORM of an argument often gives helpful clues
as to the nature of the SUBSTANCE of the argument,
at least in my experience. People who speak and argue
sloppily tend also to think sloppily. Spelling, as a rule, does
NOT count.
These are ideals that I hope we all strive towards, and it is
standard that we fall short of individually and specifically --
and I can provide examples from my own activities, sad to say.
But we shouldn't be satisfied with making excuses for
such sloppiness.
Space/Science » in reply to here's a trick from us lawyers
re: here's a trick from us lawyers
The whole thread (45 posts)
- Solar constant variation drives global warming?
- re: Solar constant variation drives global warming?
- I think an ice age would be far more destructive
- Thanks ER
- Solar variation NOT mere luminosity
- Right here ER.
- re: global warming drivers
- re: "Burden of proof" vs "ruling out"
- re: "Solar constant VARIATION" - that's the catch
- Suppose global warming altered civilization.....
