Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

This is a pivot from uncomfortable substance to your opponent's character. Formally known as an ad hominem argument.

Unable to mount a substantive argument .... you attempt to shift the playing field to different terrain.

You can attack my character all you want. I'm not representing myself as a good person. I'm just a zombie vessel through which my interpretation of the world flows based upon my observations of it.

Let's compare observations and see if we can reconcile our differences.

An ad hom is an argument that says because of xyz personal characteristic your conclusion is false or your argument is unsound.

Notice I never made such an argument.

NutNut is parody of something or someone. Not sure of what or who, but for sure a parody of some fashion.

But I thought Musk was one of the guys that will be spearheading your New World Order?

You're absolutely wrong. Consider this free education CRD.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem ('an argument to the person'), refers to when a speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Poker offers a 4th alternative to check, raise and draw. Folding is appropriate when your opponent has the nuts :-)

NutNut has trouble with the meaning of words.

And he compounds that by not knowing how to look up words in an online dictionary.

Based on the excellent definition above, CRD was not committing the Ad Hominem Fallacy. DUCY?

Nice to see you finally learned how to look up words on the internet . Well done, my friend!

There is a difference between myself and the inevitable angry mob.

Personally, I would offer Musk a job in return for his support of a peaceful transition and his agreeing to join me in bending the knee to natural law. I don't personally see the utility in revenge.

My goal is survival first, justice second.

The lessons of Versailles were that the victor nations extracted punitive justice which came back and bit them in the ass. I don't want to repeat that mistake. He's a cunning enough individual that he may have some "booby traps" set up to protect himself. Kinda like that scene in the Dark Knight where the Joker walks into the room full of mobsters with a jacket full of explosives.

At the end of the day, the calls for his head and that of prominent purveyors of other climate denial may be so great that they will be impossible to ignore.

I see a textbook example of ad hominem argument from CRD.

I say that natural law is leading to the death of the attitude which permits unlimited pollution. CRD responds by saying I "yap".

No comment whatsoever on my interpretation of natural law. Just a comment related to the quantity of my expression.

fyi - I'm relatively immune to gaslighting.

I was going off of the normal meaning of ad hominem which is outlined in the wiki

If we want to go off the wiki, then ad hominems are not universally accepted as fallacious.

However my saying you were yapping was never intended to be a refutation of your argument so it doesn’t qualify as an argumentum ad hominem (notice the word argumentum in the phrase). I wasn’t making an argument against you at all.

Then I’m not sure you understand what is meant by survival of the fittest. Nor have you explained how an attitude can be put on trial by nature akin to the Nuremburg trials.

The "kill the messenger" energy is strong.

I grasp the invasiveness of the message. It cuts deep. It interferes with the illusion of control which fear guides us to cling to.

But the truth is like quicksand. Struggling against it just aggravates the situation.

Try to relax. Focus on some deep breathing. Realize that I'm simply offering a rope by which we might possibly extricate ourselves from a tricky situation.

This actually might be an ad hominem.

Physician, heal thyself.

You're the one whose angry the most by far. I would encourage you to take to heart your own advice you give to other's.

Survival of the fittest simply means the ability to adapt to larger forces which dictate survival outcomes. If you have an alternative definition, feel free to compete with that.

The "trial" is a perpetual evolutionary force which weeds out those able to adapt from those who aren't. That's nature's judgement which is an analogy to the judgement at Nuremburg.

Adaptation requires that we let go of the traits which inhibit adaptation. Those inhibitory traits (including attitudes) are lost as part of the evolutionary process.

Psychological Reductionism is the last refuge for someone without an argument. - Dennis Prager

NutterButter does that a lot. He gets frustrated then goes into psychobabble mode.

The trick in all of this evolutionary stuff is recognizing when a previously beneficial trait morphs into something disadvantageous.

The classic example of this is the color of moths in England.

Prior to the industrial revolution, nature selected for lighter colored moth's which blended in with the background of the trees and made them harder for predator birds to locate. Then the soot from coal burning darkened the trees and dark colored moths took over.

I'm arguing with dinosaurs who can't fathom the impact of an extra-terrestrial object. Unlike the dinosaurs, we have alternatives.

More ad hominem argument.

My arguments are biological. Psychology is simply a biological manifestation.

I am angry. I'm not denying that.

I'm just channeling that energy as best I can. Letting it flow rather than trying to put a cork in the vessel and letting the pressure build.

If one recognizes that one's core is a furnace, then it's wise to embrace the chimney.

I appreciate that about Greta. She's angry and she doesn't bottle it up for the benefit of those who can't cope with the truth she is revealing.

She is insubordinate to your preference for her silence.

Evolutionary fitness is reproductive success. It doesn’t have to do with larger forces. If a gene just keeps surviving, ie making copies of itself, it doesn’t mean there will be any adaptation but it still exemplifies survival of the fittest.

I don’t see how what you’re setting up has to do with Nuremburg trials. It seems completely unrelated.

Those annoying kids who won't just roll over and die quietly so that we don't have to confront our unwillingness to adapt ..... they sure have a lot of nerve, don't they ?

/s

Dinosaurs had a lot of reproductive success until a larger force in the form of a meteor sent them packing.

Are you really as stupid as you are representing yourself at this moment or have you just taken a momentary leave from logical processing?

How does one reason with attitudes which subscribe to the notion that there are no forces larger than themselves?

You still don't know what an ad hominem argument is, do you?

Conversations with you would go much smoother if you used words correctly.