Latimer Adler claims:
> I make no claim to ‘victimhood’ whatsoever.
I make no claim otherwise, but merely pointing out that he was victim playing, for instance when he says:
> Oh dearieme. Oh the shame. Mea culpa! I abase myself.
Interestingly, he does not address my claim that he is blaming the victim. It might not be obvious for him to contradict that claim, since he provides evidence in the remaining of his post. For instance:
> But I am rather surprised that my just asking a simple question and persisting until I get a decent answer gets you all in such a froth and a flummery that you appear to have lost all control of your emotions. It is very revealing of your inner selves and should act as a dreadful warning to others.
Letting aside the obnoxious mindreading and the obvious mischaracterization, we have evidence that Latimer justifies himself thus: faced with his simple question, his interlocutors are simply reacting irrationally and emotionally. In other words, the victim is to blame.
No wonder why Latimer can’t get no satisfaction.
***
Let’s look at his “simple question”:
> On what basis? What evidence would you cite? What ‘negative impacts’ are there?
Here was Joshua’s answer:
That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change (and I’ll even throw in geo-political negative externalities as an exclusion for the sake of argument),is completely obvious are obvious to anyone who is serious about this issue and is even remotely interested in a good faith discussion.
In other words, Joshua tells him: producing CO2 creates pollution, and Latimer might very well be asking why water is wet.
Latimer’s question is irrelevant for the discussion at the time: as we saw, Joshua did not even assumed what Latimer challenges, for argument’s sake. But Latimer insists:
> I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?.
This is not a simple question. This appeals to Joshua’s pride.
Latimer Adler is ready to appeal to his interlocutor’s pride when they refuse to tell him what evidence they have to think that CO2 produces pollution and that pollution has impacts.
No wonder why Latimer can’t get no satisfaction.
***
Finally, we’ll note that many answers were still provided to him, none of which he found obvious, most of which he did not even acknowledge.
The most direct is this one:
http://bit.ly/R0zt0q
This last answer has been told twice. His last comment does not acknowledge this.
No wonder why Latimer can’t get no satisfaction.
