Really, you should look up http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
Yes, I use some of those tricks myself, when I see that logical discourse fails. For example...
# 27 Anger Indicates a Weak Point
# 28 Persuade the Audience, Not The Opponent
Remember the infanticide talks? It took me digging a few of your articles then back to other websites before I actually understood what is happening. You didn't provide the info, you prompted the digging that ultimately led me to the info. Regardless of whether we agree on the issue, your links were of poor informational quality. After I did the digging, we agreed on the facts, just not on the wording... even though many facts were conveniently left out of your original spin.
Science does not endorse socialism. Science endorses truth. In fact, science has just about nothing to say on how we should live our lives, or on moral issues, except for pointing out some causal links we can use to inform our decisions. And I would like decisions to be far more fact-based than emotion-based or religion-based. What I was commenting on too is that you need more scientific thinking, less political "thinking"... it's making your head spin.
The way you attack me on "Creative Destruction" is further proof of what you do. You used the following tactic:
# 37 A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position
i.e. by pointing out the one word I interpreted incorrectly, you conclude (incorrectly) that I was wrong on the rest. And yet, clearly, you keep using emotionally-tainted discourse almost every post. For the record, I view as monsters anyone who uses emotionally-tained discourse to manipulate people, leftists included of course. Manipulation is the opposite of freedom and choice.
About the double dip...
1) Double dip is not entirely corfirmed as important according to your articles.
2) Failing to recover is better than causing the problem in the first place.
One last thing... I can't post the rules of being right without posting your favorite ones:
# 14 Claim Victory Despite Defeat
# 38 Become Personal, Insulting, Rude
For examples, see your next post.
You mean the article published in the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" on which wiki has to say this: "The organization, its members, and the journal have all been the subjects of much criticism from mainstream medical sources" and further down there's a quote saying: "Think Glenn Beck with an MD".Like I said, I have to take your word for it, but I kind of think that something published in a notable medical journal and with the examples thoroughly cited has credibility (Alaris, et al would certainly claim so).
I also note that the article has 10 citations, 8 of which a web links, and 2 are previous articles from the author himself. The medical journal is notable, but for the wrong reasons. And the value of the citations is very shaky at best.
You should know better than to:
# 30 Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason