Yes indeed, the education system has failed you. Reading and comprehension is evidently not your strong point. Perhaps your love of making up words has spilled over into making up what other people say as well?
Please quote where I said the above?
Please quote where I deny the existence of natural selection?
While you're at it, can you please explain why you hate nuclear because it is dangerous, but at the same time would prefer more dangerous things in the world so that people can be killed more regularly?
And note, I haven't said anything pro wind, pro nuclear, pro gupta, pro anything yet. Well, except maybe anti Mach III "logic." Calm down a bit and make reasoned arguments and you might just get your point across and have reasonable discussions with people. You know, one where people can have opposing views and silly demeaning words aren't thrown around every second sentence in a hyperbolic festival.
Perhaps fitting to the name, "Archer". Focusing in on little points, to release the arrow.
Try looking at the bigger picture: (ie: escaping the narrow confines of the fallacy of composition)
I spoke of many different topics, yet you chose my one slightly pissed off rant about the biased article that was in favour of nuclear opposed to wind turbines (which committed logical errors such as confusing cause and effect fallacy, and hasty generalization fallacy; and decided to pinpoint that and extrapolate that in a "hyperbolic" eye rolling "festival".
How this has evolved into questioning me about my supposed 'hatred of nuclear technology'… is very ...interesting.
Speaking of logic, and education, allow me to educate you on the topic:
Okay, you ask where you deny natural selection:
I speak of creatures that can not adapt to threats and survive. Ie: Cats (let's leave out "retarded" because colourful lannguage seems to confuse you.) that attack rottweilers… In natural selection; In natural selection; if there were 5 cats; 4 of them had the sense of fear of the big rottweiler and they stayed clear of him/her; they would continue to survive. The one that did not have that sense of fear and did not understand their own capabalities and went to attack the rottweiler would be killed. Those 4 that survived would continue the legacy of their respective genetics.
This above sensation I drop flippantly as if it is known. You identify the made up words; pull out advocating the death of all humans, and then pull that into supposing that I am advocating a country that has a history of not handling important things properly to bring in nuclear technology. This is absurdly false and an indication of logical bankruptcy.
So, I fear our education on logic must continue: This, you firstly did not cognitize the meaning of my words; and then you presented a Red Herring Fallacy; as well as Strawman Fallacy; as well as Ad-hominem tu quoque Fallacy, as well as Hasty Generalization Fallacy; as well... as Begging the question fallacy.
Opposed to the simpicity of natural selection.. And continuing…
This is also all a strawman fallacy as I am not even standing up for wind turbines; but renewable energy as a whole.
I do hope you read up on these logical errors, and add them to your logic bank; so that in the future you don't pull me into wild irrational fantasies, and that indeed we can have sensible discussions.
