No problem. Understood. As you saw, I called myself out in the post, and expected such. I even sent you all an email to give you a heads up. Even though names can at times be well earned, I understand (and agree with) the proper place, time, and forum thing.
But in my defense (an explanation, not an excuse) I do believe in a ‘special place’ for those who purposely use religion to inflame and troll. That is what ‘set me off’. And even in that, he couldn’t get it right. He had me confused with someone else.
That’s right, I just made it all up.
Anthropomorphic global warming is the wacky faith based religion of the left, so I guess a Jesus reference isn’t completely out of place.
That some of you support the EPA regulating CO2 as a toxin is about on par with thinking Jesus will save us from global warming.
Oh no wait not I didn’t.
And yet, despite all of your claims to the contrary, you have’t addressed why I’m wrong in any substantive way. Saying you’re correct in calling my view a logical fallacy because it’s a logical fallacy is circular reasoning.
Actually, that new fallacy you’re using is called “Begging the question”.
I know you’re have absolute certainty of your correctness and my complete inability to understand your greatness. I’ve asked you try to explain your ‘logic’ in simple steps so that my tiny caveman brain can comprehend what you’re talking about. Instead, I got a spittle flecked rant with circular reasoning.
Why do you even bother responding if you won’t say anything that moves the conversation along? What purpose does it serve for you to come along and troll my posts other than to stroke your own sense of smug superiority? Why do you then completely freak out when I dare question your vast intellect?