ps: all I said was: arsons playing a part.
Not 100% responsible.
Climate Change - so I'm starting to panic a bit
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
We're gonna do this again?
If you, Tashi or KenN cant take something and search for it then you're innate.
Put "85% bush fires arson" into google and see what happens. Dont argue with me about the sources either because you, Ken and Tashi havent linked shit.
What you’re doing now is called deflecting, it typically happens when someone isn’t able to back up their argumet.
The last post where I made a claim I included a link to the source in the post. WRT KenN’s last post, if you asked him I’m pretty sure he could cite a source for his claim.
In debate it’s not my responsibility to source info that supports your claim, that your responsibility. My responsibility is to be able to cite info that supports my claim. By arguing against that you’re simply making yourself look like a muppet .
This is our difference. I'm not debating, I'm conversating.
You fuckers need to smoke one and relax.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: KenN
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: tungsten
Arsons playing a part.
No more so than any other year. Climate change is still the dominant factor in the size and intensity of the fires, and the early start to fire season.
I'm unfamiliar with annual numbers but if 50-85% of Bush fires are arson and we can agree, then we do. Those are %s from a quick search.
You Said 50 to 85% which is a total crock of right wing, climate change denier bullshit.
Even FOX news did a piece debunking that crap.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: tashi
Who says that 50-85% of bush fires have been caused by arson?
Do I look like google ? For a bunch of geniuses I have to serve y'all up everything.
I googled.
First page was reputable sources talking about how arson has NOT made a significant contribution to the bush fires currently burning, nothing about how they’re responsible for any significant percentage of the fires down there.
I guess I’m, in your words, “innate”.
Last edited by: tashi on Jan. 10, 2020, 6:55 a.m., edited 2 times in total.
Australia...
Hottest year on record
Driest year on record
Worst fire season on record
Just a coincidence... must be arson. Haha. That must be some tasty Kool Aid Shogun.
Arson wankers have always started way too many of the fires. I've not heard any reports suggesting that the firebugs have increased drastically in numbers.
The two big ones where I grew up were presumed to be from lightning strikes and a tree falling on a power line. Both during dry thunder storms that often come with the heat waves.
Posted by: FLATCH
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: KenN
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: tungsten
Arsons playing a part.
No more so than any other year. Climate change is still the dominant factor in the size and intensity of the fires, and the early start to fire season.
I'm unfamiliar with annual numbers but if 50-85% of Bush fires are arson and we can agree, then we do. Those are %s from a quick search.
You Said 50 to 85% which is a total crock of right wing, climate change denier bullshit.
Perhaps the two links I read used different metrics. But from one of the ask google links (those pre posed questions with drop down boxes in googl searchs):
Hundreds arrested for deliberately starting catastrophic Australian bushfires. ... According to James Ogloff, the director of the Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University, approximately 50 percent of Australia's bushfires are started by arsonists.4 days ago
Someone needs to send that Uni some freedom and democracy?!
Posted by: chupacabra
Australia...
Hottest year on record
Driest year on record
Worst fire season on recordJust a coincidence... must be arson. Haha. That must be some tasty Kool Aid Shogun.
Ya it's like they live on a desert island with a giant desert in the middle of the island.
Posted by: FLATCH
Even FOX news did a piece debunking that crap.
So now Fox news is cool?
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
This is our difference. I'm not debating, I'm conversating.
You fuckers need to smoke one and relax.
Debate, converese, discuss and argue all mean essentially the same thing. You're saying point A is the right one and others are saying you're wrong. What you need to do is put a little more effort into making quality conversation if you want us to take you seriously and not treat you like a dimwit.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Perhaps the two links I read used different metrics. But from one of the ask google links (those pre posed questions with drop down boxes in googl searchs):
Hundreds arrested for deliberately starting catastrophic Australian bushfires. ... According to James Ogloff, the director of the Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University, approximately 50 percent of Australia's bushfires are started by arsonists.4 days ago
Someone needs to send that Uni some freedom and democracy?!
lol - weak attempt at a back pedal. Your source for that quote is questionable at best and utterly laughable at worst.
Here, I'll help you out a bit with a link that explains why the 50-85% number is so wrong.
If you do some digging to try and support your claim you might, and I say that with heavy trepidation, just might discover the problems with making these assumptions of 50-85%. You might even come across an Australian govt report that states 13% are arson and another 37% could potentially be interpreted that way but the data is not strong enough to draw that conclusion. You might even stumble across another report that talks about the problems with determining what percentage of these fires are arson, including the fact that fire departments/agencies may erroneously assume arson due to a lack of other obvious possible explanations. And lastly you then need to consider that many of these arson fires are inconsequential, as in they don't turn into these giant fires that are currently sweeping across Australia.
I think your biggest problem is that you're a simple thinker. You take tidbits of information and assume them to be truth without doing any further investigation. To be fair I think everyone is subject to this once in a while, but you seem to do it almost all the fucking time. Headlines and soundbites that are often massaged to present an agenda or simply grab people's attention typically provide only a tiny fraction of the real story. Without reading the full story and questioning what's in it and then cross referencing that with an opposing view it can be difficult to get the full story. Typing something into google and simply reading what's on the results page does not qualify as research or info gathering by any stretch of the imagination, you actually have to take the time to click the links and read what they say. Up your game man, besides being annoying it's fucking embarrassing at times how poorly developed your arguments are.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
This is our difference. I'm not debating, I'm conversating.
You fuckers need to smoke one and relax.
Debate, converese, discuss and argue all mean essentially the same thing. You're saying point A is the right one and others are saying you're wrong. What you need to do is put a little more effort into making quality conversation if you want us to take you seriously and not treat you like a dimwit.
Thanks - now I know what the definition of a dimwit is.
Posted by: switch
Posted by: syncro
Debate, converese, discuss and argue all mean essentially the same thing. You're saying point A is the right one and others are saying you're wrong. What you need to do is put a little more effort into making quality conversation if you want us to take you seriously and not treat you like a dimwit.
Thanks - now I know what the definition of a dimwit is.
You must be a cuck in real life because you're always going second.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Perhaps the two links I read used different metrics. But from one of the ask google links (those pre posed questions with drop down boxes in googl searchs):
Hundreds arrested for deliberately starting catastrophic Australian bushfires. ... According to James Ogloff, the director of the Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University, approximately 50 percent of Australia's bushfires are started by arsonists.4 days ago
Someone needs to send that Uni some freedom and democracy?!
lol - weak attempt at a back pedal. Your source for that quote is questionable at best and utterly laughable at worst.
Here, I'll help you out a bit with a link that explains why the 50-85% number is so wrong.
If you do some digging to try and support your claim you might, and I say that with heavy trepidation, just might discover the problems with making these assumptions of 50-85%. You might even come across an Australian govt report that states 13% are arson and another 37% could potentially be interpreted that way but the data is not strong enough to draw that conclusion. You might even stumble across another report that talks about the problems with determining what percentage of these fires are arson, including the fact that fire departments/agencies may erroneously assume arson due to a lack of other obvious possible explanations. And lastly you then need to consider that many of these arson fires are inconsequential, as in they don't turn into these giant fires that are currently sweeping across Australia.
I think your biggest problem is that you're a simple thinker. You take tidbits of information and assume them to be truth without doing any further investigation. To be fair I think everyone is subject to this once in a while, but you seem to do it almost all the fucking time. Headlines and soundbites that are often massaged to present an agenda or simply grab people's attention typically provide only a tiny fraction of the real story. Without reading the full story and questioning what's in it and then cross referencing that with an opposing view it can be difficult to get the full story. Typing something into google and simply reading what's on the results page does not qualify as research or info gathering by any stretch of the imagination, you actually have to take the time to click the links and read what they say. Up your game man, besides being annoying it's fucking embarrassing at times how poorly developed your arguments are.
I can back pedal on this because the contradictory links are only 23 hours old dude. And like I've said in the past, if I see 2-3 excerpts from 2-3 diff links mentioning something, then I'll run with it.
Poorly developed arguments? After the Fukushima and Ebola threads why would I try to develop anything more for you guys. You guys are doing the same thing to Tungsten that you did to me then ("hey be less extreme and you might have a point", gentrifying bitches). Perhaps you guys take this shit waaaay too seriously or expect way too much from me but thats why I keep things short and Cam hasnt banned me yet so you should be used to it. I'm not trying to physically beat you fuckers with information. I phone this in now because you guys dont deserve anything more.
Forum jump:
