Considering Gohmert’s past history of embracing the stupid, this would be a lot easier to buy if he was on record anywhere claiming that this was his intent.
Of course we can move the earth’s orbit further away from the sun. The Outsiders will sell us a reactionless drive that’ll do the trick. It worked for the puppeteers’ home planet, and it’ll work for us. It’ll cost us, though. We’d be paying for it in installments from now to eternity.
That’s him just being an utter unfettered asshat.
That is nice… And still stupidly wrong from Gohmert, read my post and the NASA cite.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re making. Have you read the thread? The [lack of] merit of his ideas was never in dispute here, just the correct parsing of his rhetoric.
Again, not even what Ultravires spelled out makes it sarcastic mockery, the assumed “real reason” why he made that mockery turns out to be a “not even wrong” belief that is a very special kind of stupid coming from Gohmert, still.
From a rhetorical perspective it certainly was sarcastic mockery, the fact that the mockery was ill-conceived and based on discredited underlying ideas doesn’t change that. It was clearly not (as some seemed to think) a serious proposal that we could move the moon.
I really wouldn’t think I’d have to spell this out, but read my post #74. I’d have thought “know your enemy” - know what bad ideas your enemy actually believes and why - is a pretty uncontroversial idea.
I’d say I argue with enough conservatives online to know that Gohmert was certainly saying that, “Climate change is caused by celestial events, and you morons think you can fix that?”
He’s stupid. He’s ugly. He’s as likeable as ass-cancer, and he deserves to die penniless and and unloved after living a decade beneath a freeway overpass (of natural causes, not wishing death on him). That doesn’t mean he literally thinks the forest service has a planetary-scale tractor beam. And pretending it does to get a zinger on him isn’t honest. He’s trash enough, no need to play-act that he’s dumber than he is.
Good thing I was not giving any value to that “serious proposal” rhetoric, but I was referring to what Ultravires and you then tried to assume, it does not help him at all in the “he could be smart” department (we still do not know really if that is the case with Gohmert, until he clarifies, this talk about assuming “sarcastic mockery” is not based on evidence.)
The point that you miss is that even if that was the case, what Gohmert then bases that “rhetoric” is weapon’s grade ignorance and stupidity.
Uh, I agree, hence the point that it turns out that the bad idea that the enemy is using is a very, very stupid one (again, not the move the planets one, the one about natural cycles being the reason for the current warming). And if there was actual rhetoric there (and I still have some doubts about it) it means that they do not use just ignorance, but bad faith arguments too.
I have not remotely missed that point, nor has anyone else in this thread. If you think that, you need to read the thread more carefully.
With all due respect to your knowledge about the science of climate change, which far exceeds mine, you are simply not grasping that this conversation is not a dispute about the [lack of] merits of Gohmert’s underlying ideas.
If we can’t parse when our opponents are make a serious proposal, and when they are being sarcastic and what about, and to what audience their sarcasm is directed, we are ill-equipped to challenge their bad ideas effectively to any audience that may be reachable.
Hence what I was doing, the problem here is that his real assumed (again, it remains an assumption so far that he was sarcastic) rhetoric was based on a non-serious claim.
You can keep shouting this with your hands over your ears all you want, but as I’ve told you, nobody in this thread has ever suggested otherwise. We all agree that his underlying beliefs are false, and that he’s an idiot.
This is the entire issue under discussion here, not some side point.
What if Gohmert had said:
“Right, cow burps are melting the ice caps!”
Would you be praising him for actually starting to get to grips with the science? Or do you think it would be important to realize that this is intended as sarcastic mockery, that he thinks it’s a ridiculous idea, and that he does not in fact believe it contains any element of truth? Because the way you and some others in this thread are acting, if he said that tomorrow you’d vote for him.
ETA: @GIGObuster if you still don’t accept the unambiguous fact that what he said was sarcastic mockery, you have some work to do in understanding his perspective, screwy as it may be. Again, all I can suggest is to read the thread more thoroughly.
Good luck with that.
But that again shows that you are also wrong about me. The bottom line is that in the previous post you declared that there was a “serious claim” there.
It was not. Nature is not the one increasing the temperatures, humans are by releasing global warming gases. The point is that no, what the assumed place Gohmert is coming from is an unserious claim also, once one sees the evidence.
Perhaps is the wishful thinking that Republicans could have serious claims. Perhaps, but not today. And remember, as the one making the assumption, do you have a cite that demonstrates that what he said was sarcastic mockery? As I noted it would take just a later comment about how he does think that nature is under control (and I think that is likely, but again, we are working with an assumption, that in the end is just an argument from ignorance); however this guy is not the sharpest knife in the Republican drawer. And many times in the past I have seen people like him start as reasonable, but end up believing the worst propaganda that republicans and the right wing media themselves produce nowadays.
Or…maybe they are…
Um, and so, is there anything that the National Forest Service or BLM can do to change the course of the Moon’s orbit or the Earth’s orbit around the sun?
So, he is asking if they can, which means he thinks it is possible.
No, you totally misunderstood what I said.
Here I am obviously using “serious” as an antonym to “sarcastic”. In other words, whether the speaker intended that we take his words at face value, “serious” in the sense of “not a joke”.
This is clearly not “serious” in the other sense of “weighty, important, worthy of consideration”. And in any event, it’s couched in a hypothetical - and my entire point here is that his words are intended as a sarcastic joke, i.e. not serious.
I have some degree of patience with you because I know you’re not a native English speaker. But it behooves you to be a little less belligerent if you’re going to make errors like this. You’re fabricating an opponent to shout at where none exists.
Asking a rhetorical question about performing some impossible feat does not indicate that the questioner thinks it can be done - just the opposite, in fact.
Look, I’ll be the first guy in line to say that Louie Gohmert is both a tool and a fool, and I don’t think anyone here is defending him on grounds that he is not. But his goal here was to star in some “Gohmert OWNZ the Libz” video on youtube, not to generate any serious discussion. His whole point was to get the witness to say that no, they couldn’t do anything about celestial orbits, which to LG’s target audience is the same as saying “no, we can’t do anything about the source of climate change.”
If you say so, I disagree.