And how do we know that the actions we may take wouldn't make the situation worse.
In fact. Here's the deal. These "scientists" or mystics or whatever they are seem to be smart.
Here's the deal. If they can tell me what the temperature is going to be on the top of the hour, every hour for tomorrow, maybe I'll believe them what the weather's going to be like in 200 hundred years.
While they're at it they can tell us for certain where Hurrican Rita is going to make landfall.
Or we know that the weather was warmer and cooler in the past. Maybe they can explain why?
Or they could explain why it appears that the rate of warming was higher before World War II than since.
Or they could simply explain where the white goes where snow melts.
Roger Fraley
· 4 years ago
Isaac Asimov had a long article, somewhere, about patterns of Earth warming and cooling that made a whole lot of sense. I haven't bothered to Google it for you, but you might. It really was excellent, about 20 years ago. Great article you did here. I'd say 90% of warming or cooling is Sun related, but I'm no scientist. I did learn about the Little Optimum and Little Iceage researching a paper in 1978 about Icelandic literature and have kept my hand into paleoclimatology as a dilletante ever since. Keep up the good work.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Excellent post. This:
Four volcanoes - Washington State, Indonesia, Italy and Iceland -- were active in 2004. These four events alone have done more to destroy the ozone layer than humans have in written history.
Is a point I've been making for a long time. Sadly, these people just don't seem to get it.
Yet another question; is global warming the natural order of things? Everyone knows the Earth has gone through several ice ages; which by definition means that there have been warming periods after the ice age. Can these be blamed on human activity?
At a minimum, a case can be made to have cleaner fossil fuel burning technology. China uses a lot of coal which does have know health effects. See Bad air drifts across Pacific as an example.
In my judgement, the case for minimizing pollution from fossil fuels is a much stronger scientific case than the one that says burning fossil fuels causes global warming.
Many have proposed that nuclear energy use be increased. It helps address C02 and pollution emissions; but with its own problems as well. There's no free lunch.
Bottom-line...human activity is not going to go away and we are integral to life on the Earth. The first cave man to use a fire pit to cook a meal started changing the 'natural order' of things. We know that human activity is a two-edge sword with some unintended consequences. We have to use technology and 'brain' power to develop cost/benefit analyses and continually adjust as we gather more information.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
So you're saying that science has an inherent anti-Bush bias? Well, that sounds about right to me...
I mean, these folks are only respected scientists with advanced degrees and years of research and experience. On the other hand, you read an article on NewsMax so obviously your opinion is just as valid---if not more valid---than theirs.
You're being a tad hubristic, n'est pas?
Mr. Bowen
· 4 years ago
It doesn't matter how many degrees one has, Donny me boyo, if your argument has glaring logical inconsistencies any reasonably educated high school graduate can spot, you're still an idiot. You may take that personally, or you may take that as a characterization of the "Global Warming is all mankind's fault!" crowd, or both, since its such an accurate summation of the lot of you. Now piss off, the adults are tryign to have a discussion.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
Just to be clear, Mr. B---the vast majority of the world scientific community is wrong, and you're right.
Is that what you're telling us?
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
I'm sorry, natty, but I found that last comment unclear.
Are you saying that the entire world scientific community has been "taught with disinformation" and are "misinforming others?"
Because if you are, you're implying a staggering worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of scholars and researchers designed to slightly impact the P&L statements of energy brokers and stock traders.
Which, if you'll excuse the colloquialism, sounds a little bit crazy.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
Also, natty, the only people still suggesting that "the earth is the flat center of the universe" are the creationists and religious zealots---and, of course, their lapdogs in the White House.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
BTW, natty---you are confusing the meriticratic approach (that's the application I advocate above) with a democratic one. They really are quite different.
natty dark
· 4 years ago
If you want to use the democratic approach towards science, then the earth is the flat center of the universe.
Why is it so hard to believe that those who were taught with disinformation may be misinforming others?
Dave
· 4 years ago
If you want to use the democratic approach towards science, then the earth is the flat center of the universe.
Probably would have gone with, "...then the earth is 10,000 years old."
Since like 45% of Americans believe that. Yikes.
natty dark
· 4 years ago
my point is, if we are limited to the general concensus of scientists, then we wouldn't have progressed past the flat earth center of the universe stage.
it doesn't take a worldwide conspiracy. Just a poor education system, some well-placed media bias, and a lot of repitition.
Perhaps you would rather drink the kool aid than question that which is put before you. How's the weather in Guyana?
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
Yikes indeed!
natty dark
· 4 years ago
And Don - it is easy to dismiss me as a Newsmax fanatic. Easy to call it a politically partisan attack. I consider it a tad xenophobic, but if that is what keeps you sane then just roll on and agree to disagree. But there is a well-placed philosophy in my post. Consider me a Bushie - I really don't care. If you did any amount of research, you would find that is far from the truth.
I had a discussion with a Yale grad, she ran the numbers on global warming. It was intellectually stimulating for about 10 minutes. She saw the data, after all. Who am I to question it? I asked her if the person who gave her the data might be biased. I asked her if there was any way to verify the data before she got it. Another unanswered question was whether she saw ANY data that was contrary to her findings. When I walked away from her, shaking my head in amazement that such a closed-minded ignoramus could be a Yale graduate, she was repeating for the 10th time, "I know what I know!"
Do you know what you know? More importantly, do you know what you don't know?
modern instances
· 4 years ago
Bill Hicks was a fuckin genius. It's really scary how prophistic he was.
natty dark
· 4 years ago
Good call Dave, that would have been a better response.
I prefer the way Bill Hicks described it. His stand-up about dinosaur bones being placed there to test the faith of Christians is priceless. "Oh, so he's a prankster God!"
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
natty:
I can assure you that "the general concensus of scientists" is NOT a flat earth in a geocentric universe. Not in this century or outside the White House, at least.
You seem to be basing your whole "well-placed philosophy" on:
1) your misunderstanding of the Socratic method,
2) that ever-present excuse of the Bushies---bias! Horrible, hideous bias!---and
3) an encounter with some chick from Yale.
You're right about one thing---I don't know much about global climate patterns. That's why I rely on the folks I cited above.
You choose to rely on---well, who exactly? You're long on pronouncements and short on sources here. Your post reads like regurgitated blogger blather and half-remembered NewsMax, but who knows?
In conclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree---with me relying on science, and you relying on second-rate punditry and your "well-placed philosophy."
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
seth:
I know, I know...All I have to do is shine a tiny bit of light into the dark, dank closet of modern neocon thinking, and they all get so bitchy
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
natty:
You're absolutely right about what happens when "someone uses politics to address science. Data loses its relevance and messengers become targets."
It happened to "Galileo when he presented the theory of the earth not being the center of the universe"---not because he conflicted with prevailing science, but because he conflicted with prevailing dogma.
Today, prevailing science regarding climatology conflicts with the prevailing neocon dogma.
It's obvious from your which side of that conflict you're on, dude, and it's not on the side of math and science.
natty dark
· 4 years ago
You seem to be:
1) 2) and 3) making assumptions on which you have no clue.
My experience exceeds your assumptions, but laying it out for your inspection will not satisfy you so I will not bother. The word insatiable comes to mind.
My philosophy did not spawn from this chick from Yale. This chick from Yale was one of the authorities on which your beliefs are founded. But then again, you know what you know. How can there be anything else?
My mention on the flat earth theory seems to be beyond your ability to see as an attempt at humor. But this stagnant resilience to consider that the earth is cyclical, and those cycles exceed documented history, is equivalent to locking up Galileo when he presented the theory of the earth not being the center of the universe, or around the time when Christopher Columbus was told by modern science that his boats would fall off the edge of the earth if he sailed too far.
My mention of the Bushies is in response to your constant reference to them - inside the White House - as the epitome of all things stupid, which reeks of your political affiliation. This theory has nothing to do with Dems, or Reps, or who is president.
This is what happens when someone uses politics to address science. Data loses its relevance and messengers become targets.
I may respond to your future posts, or I may not. If I choose to, it will be for my enjoyment, for it is obvious what an act of futility it is.
Seth Yantiss
· 4 years ago
It's funny Don... You always get the same reaction from people.
Weird, huh?
Natty Dark
· 4 years ago
Seth -
If he is as insulting and closed-minded towards everyone else, it is no surprise he gets the same reaction over and over again.
Carrick
· 4 years ago
Don Myers: Funny thing is that scientists generally don't have any problem with people being skeptical. They didn't mind when Rush came out with his criticisms of global warming.
Asking tough questions improves the science rather than detracting from it.
And anybody who things that one particular scientific viewpoint is gospel is every bit, if not more, dogmatic than the people they are criticizing for asking questions.
... Especially in your case, since you were only able to erect easily slapped down strawman arguments, and added zero new information to the mix.
I happen to think that the scientific evidence in favor of a human component to climate change is much strong that Natty Dark as made out (though I am no climatologist), but he is perfectly entitled to ask reasoned questions, which is all he did.
You're the one who flipped out with the zealot knee-jerk reaction.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Don Myers spit out, So you're saying that science has an inherent anti-Bush bias? Well, that sounds about right to me...
No, that's not what he's saying at all. Although I could see how you would want him to say that because you have very little to no argument unless you put up this stupid strawman. What he's basically saying is that man-made global warming is a theory and not a proven fact in any sense of the word. A theory Don. I'll say it again since you seem to be stuck on stupid: a theory. Got it? Good.
Also, natty, the only people still suggesting that "the earth is the flat center of the universe" are the creationists and religious zealots--and, of course, their lapdogs in the White House.
Thanks for showing us once again that you are not a serious person grounded in reality and who will take any and every opportunity to turn things into an ugly political contest.
I can assure you that "the general concensus of scientists" is NOT a flat earth in a geocentric universe. Not in this century or outside the White House, at least.
It's not that way in the White House either. Stop being a jackass.
In conclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree--with me relying on science, and you relying on second-rate punditry and your "well-placed philosophy."
I'll rewrite that so that it makes more sense: "In conclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree--with me relying on science being a hostile jackass, and you relying on second-rate punditry and your 'well-placed philosophy.' questions I can't and won't address."
Today, prevailing science regarding climatology conflicts with the prevailing neocon dogma.
The religious dogma displayed here is coming from you. Natty is questioning your dogma and you have gotten hostile. So you're almost right here, you just had the sides switched.
It's obvious from your which side of that conflict you're on, dude, and it's not on the side of math and science.
Care to explain this Don is do you just say these kinds of things to replace a real argument?
I know, I know...All I have to do is shine a tiny bit of light into the dark, dank closet of modern neocon thinking, and they all get so bitchy
Always a cocksucker, aren't you?
Dave said, Probably would have gone with, "...then the earth is 10,000 years old."
Since like 45% of Americans believe that. Yikes.
Can you prove this Dave? Any hard numbers? Perhaps some poll out there asking this very question?
modern instances said, Bill Hicks was a fuckin genius. It's really scary how prophistic he was.
Could you explain that? Thanks.
Mr. Bowen
· 4 years ago
Just to be clear, Mr. B--the vast majority of the world scientific community is wrong, and you're right.
Is that what you're telling us?
Yeah, sure, Captain Reading Comprehension, thats exactly what I meant. Don, if any of the employees I supervise engaged in the same stunning display of cognitive ability you just managed, they'd already be out the in parking lot, pushing carts. And they'd stay there, too, because I can't afford idiots like you in my department.
Now piss off, the adults are trying to have a conversation.
Natty Dark
· 4 years ago
Thank you for showing me that Don is not indicative of the mentality of those who frequent this site. I have found that even mensan newsgroups draw these nutbags who view life through their fixed kaleidoscope and refuse to see anything but the pretty colors before them.
Porkopolis - I think that recurring ice ages are inevitable, but this is merely my belief, roughly substantiated by the ice cores drilled by scientists at the poles. Sun cycles are visible like tree rings in these core samples, and the theories that support the recurring warming/cooling of the planet are compelling. The random act of meteors and asteroids disrupting the cycles cause statistical anomalies that avoid complete predictability. But up until now, as far as we know (note the qualifier, Don?), history has been unable to maintain integrity in data preservation over millenia - or even education continuity to bring these questions past one cycle.
Want an interesting, yet intense read? Check out Herbie Brennan's "The Atlantis Enigma" - not a bible of science, but what a fascinating theory! Found myself re-reading paragraphs just to keep up with the concepts he was throwing out. He uses the Socratic method, which is entertaining, and calls to question much of what modern science has accepted as fact. This book is a topic in itself - I don't accept it as fact, but I would definitely like to hear what others think about it, if you can fathom it.
keep it simple
· 4 years ago
isn't it funny how everybody gets so distracted? back up the tape a bit...
...and tell me you know more than they. Everybody here is a frickin analogy queen. This is not an analogical situation. It is a matter of direct cause and effect.
pollutive output in reaction with the atmosphere and it's cumulative effects = relevant.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
solar activity = irrelevant.
Solar activity is "irrelevant" as a cause for a warming Earth? Really? You got any more nuggest of wisdom for us that come from your upside world?
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
We can't do anything about the sun. We can, however, control our industry knowing the atmosphere isn't cooperating with what we're doing now regardless. Hot weather and pollution don't mix well for anything.
Well now that is a mature response.
CLAP CLAP CLAP
It was a lot better than the usual sticking your head in the sand and saying that the sun is "irrelevant" to global temperatures.
keep it simple
· 4 years ago
We can't do anything about the sun. We can, however, control our industry knowing the atmosphere isn't cooperating with what we're doing now regardless. Hot weather and pollution don't mix well for anything.
Seth Yantiss
· 4 years ago
solar activity = irrelevant.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
What a maroon!!!
Your point must be that since there is nothing we can do about the sun, which is not entirely true, we must do everything we can to halt industrial polution.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the statement that less polution is good. We just differ about how many financial burdens we want to put up with the stop X% of polution. What level of polution is acceptable? Where is the cut off point for stifeling development vs technological progression. If we disable our industrial capacity through polution control, how do we endeavor to feed, cloth, home, employ everyone who is already here? How much do we spend on transportation each day? Will that double, triple, quadruple... if we enact the most polution restrictive laws? Will our industry suffer so much that our standard of living declines? Kyoto has this potential. But what level of polutions do we need to reach ecological equalibrium? By many theories, our level of population is not sustainable. Should we start killing people now? Open up the gas chambers again so that our Earth will continue to sustain us for another million years?
Polution is a problem, there is no doubt. How much of a problem is it though? Will it result in a greatly reduced habitable life span for our planet? Or is our planet going through a natural cycle that we are not having much of an impact upon?
You don't know... I don't know... But for every scientist who says that Global Warming because of man is fact, there is one who says otherwise.
The Whistler
· 4 years ago
One thing I found funny is the liberals used to claim that 20,000 scientists at the South American (Rio?) conference agreed that we were causing Global Warming.
The only problem was that they weren't 20,000 climatologists. The majority were social scientists whatever that means.
I recall a fact from a few years ago. There have been 5 climatologists that have received the Nobel Prize.
Two of the five believe in man made global warming.
How do we know that what we do wouldn't make things worse.
Say Anything » Why is it
· 4 years ago
[...] There has been a spat of recent postings on global warming ([1] [2]), so I thought this would be a good place to stick in some facts that have been known for a while, but not widely circulated. [...]
Dave
· 4 years ago
Oh yeah... let's just hope these are the same 44% who do NOT vote. ;)
Dave
· 4 years ago
I wrote:
Probably would have gone with, "...then the earth is 10,000 years old."
Since like 45% of Americans believe that. Yikes.
likwidshoe wrote:
Can you prove this Dave? Any hard numbers? Perhaps some poll out there asking this very question?
Sure. This link contains about a half dozen polls, all showing the number ranging from 40-50%, depending on how the question is asked. For example:
NBC News Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). March 8-10, 2005. N=800 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on Earth: evolution or the biblical account of creation?" Asked of those who answered "Biblical account": "And by this do you mean that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh as described in the Book of Genesis, or that God was a divine presence in the formation of the universe?"
Evolution 33% Biblical account 57% (out of these): --------------Created in six days 44% --------------Divine presence 13% None of the above (vol.) 3 Unsure 7
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Oh yeah... let's just hope these are the same 44% who do NOT vote.
Why? How does it matter?
Dave
· 4 years ago
They are not capable of Reason. They cannot analyze complex issues. They do not understand how the world works. If you believe the universe is 6,000 years old, you are stupid.
Sorry for the bluntness; I hold Reason as our highest goal, and when people abandon it, sadness and anger result.
Why so defensive? It's not like these mentally deficient people overwhelmingly vote for your party, right? ;)
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
They are not capable of Reason.
My my,...you sound very elitist Dave. Can't say that I'm surprised though...
Why so defensive? It's not like these mentally deficient people overwhelmingly vote for your party, right? ;)
And an insult to close. Congrats Dave. Pat yourself on the back some more. It suits you well.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Dave
· 4 years ago
Likwid, you live in a world of Gray. My world is in Black and White.
Creationists are ignorant to the way the world works. That's not "elitist"; it's a fact. This is above politics; just because Young-Earth Creationists make up a large part of your party's voters is no reason for you to refrain from criticism. You cannot be a champion of Reason if you refuse to condemn irrationality in your peers.And if you are not a chamion of Reason, you are not a complete human being.
Ayn Rand wrote:
"Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind."
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Creationists are ignorant to the way the world works.
Oh yeah? Prove it. Good luck on that one buddy.
That's not "elitist"; it's a fact.
Oh it's a "fact" now. Cool! I'll be waiting for your proof. I can't wait to see the proof of why we exist and the whole purpose of life and how we all came about to be. This will be the first time it has actually been proven beyond all doubt. Can't wait. You're going to answer one of man's oldest questions and give proof.
This is above politics; just because Young-Earth Creationists make up a large part of your party's voters is no reason for you to refrain from criticism.
Please Dave. Enough with the assumptions.
You cannot be a champion of Reason if you refuse to condemn irrationality in your peers.And if you are not a chamion of Reason, you are not a complete human being.
Dave, can you define what "Reason" means in your black and white world? Because in the real world, "reason", or "Reason" if you want to be an elitist prick about it, is defined differently among people. For example, I believe reason shows without a doubt that smaller governments are one of the best insurances of freedom. A lot of your peers disagree and welcome, no - endorse, a big government. What would you say to that? Oh yes... what you would say is that if you disagree, "you are not a complete human being."
And you wonder why I called you elitist.
Dave
· 4 years ago
And you wonder why I called you elitist.
Because you're afraid to admit that there is an objective reality, that there ARE objective answers to problems, that most issues ARE black and white. You live in a fantasy world of moral relativism, a world where it doesn't matter what facts are--everyone has an opinion, and all opinions are valid. Where objective scientific facts are no different from political theories--where a comparison between Young-Earth Creationism and limited government is valid! Oh, you think the universe is 6,000 years old? Well, that's your opinion, and I value it!
When Edmund the Bastard lamented "the great foppery of the world", he was talking about fools like you and the cockamamie fables you believe.
He had no respect for bunkum; neither do I.
Oh it's a "fact" now. Cool! I'll be waiting for your proof. I can't wait to see the proof of why we exist and the whole purpose of life and how we all came about to be.
And your reading comprehension is as inept as your scientific knowledge.
Evolution is the fact. I reject determinism, societal and metaphysical; we make our own purpose in life.
Carrick
· 4 years ago
Dave:
Creationists make up a large part of your party's voters
Um... I know this was addressed to Liqwid & I'm not actually a Republican, but the facts do say otherwise. Based on the last election exit poll results, about 20% of those who voted for Bush were evangelicals (the dominant component of creationists of course). That's a far cry from "a large part of your party's voters", though still important.
On the other hand, simply because I (so obviously) disagree with them is no reason to insult them. Not much in this world is etched in stone, and they're entitled to their beliefs (just so as they don't try & stuff 'em down my throat).
Natty Dark
· 4 years ago
Dave - few questions:
What makes you think that all creationist Christians vote Republican? Or that all people who believe in creationism are Christians?
There are plenty of Democrats in churches too - ever seen their pamphlets? Those weekly handouts aren't advocating wars in Iraq.
John Kerry was begging to eat that cracker in 2004 (eucharist) - and to legitimately eat it you have to believe in the Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine includes the creationist theory. That is just one Democrat off the top of my head - almost the chief potato, wasn't he?
Let's throw in the nuns at the DC protest this weekend - or my little socialist Catholic friend who voted Democrat. Think they might believe that creationist stuff?
There is a plethora of ignoramii outside of the religious circles as well. Shall we take their votes away? Are you advocating that there be a test before one can vote? Will you construct the test, or shall I?
Point is, there are a LOT of Christians who believe in creationism. You want to point out all the ones that vote Republican, go ahead. How about if we add in the Muslims, since they agree with the same doctrine up until Abraham? How do they tend to vote?
And if you want to talk about living in black and white - as far as tolerance goes - I would say that Islam is as black and white as religions get. Would you agree, infidel?
Dave
· 4 years ago
What makes you think that all creationist Christians vote Republican? Or that all people who believe in creationism are Christians?
Nothing. Rarely are voting patterns absolute. Trends occur with great frequency. In 2004, a majority of Creationists, a majority of self-proclaimed Evangelical Christians, voted for Bush. Not all, but a majority.
And if you want to talk about living in black and white - as far as tolerance goes - I would say that Islam is as black and white as religions get. Would you agree, infidel?
Yes.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Dave drivels on, Because you're afraid to admit that there is an objective reality, that there ARE objective answers to problems, that most issues ARE black and white.
I see that you can't turn off that elitism. It is what you are. Why do you think I'm afraid of it? I'm just challenging your argument and you come out with the insults. Run out of ammo already?
You live in a fantasy world of moral relativism, a world where it doesn't matter what facts are--everyone has an opinion, and all opinions are valid.
Actually, the truth is the complete opposite of what you just stated. Again, I'm just challenging your argument. I'm still waiting for your "facts".
Where objective scientific facts are no different from political theories--where a comparison between Young-Earth Creationism and limited government is valid!
Where was that comparison? I certainly didn't make it. I was talking about "reason" Dave. Pay attention.
Oh, you think the universe is 6,000 years old? Well, that's your opinion, and I value it!
No you don't. You believe that anybody who doesn't believe what you do is "stupid" and is "not a complete human being".
When Edmund the Bastard lamented "the great foppery of the world", he was talking about fools like you and the cockamamie fables you believe.
More elitism. You're going to make a terrible teacher. Tell me Dave: what do I believe? Because I haven't said. You just assumed once again because I am taking issue with your argument.
And your reading comprehension is as inept as your scientific knowledge.
Huh? Quit dodging and prove your assertions already. We know that you can't, but it will be fun watching you descent into insults. And my reading comprehension seems to be well above yours Mr. Aspiring English Teacher. Ditto for my logic.
Evolution is the fact.
Evolution is a fact only so far as we can evolve. What you haven't proved, and what you can't prove, is that evolution is all there is. Do you disagree or do you just find that "stupid" and have no argument?
I reject determinism, societal and metaphysical; we make our own purpose in life.
That's nice. I hope that nobody comes along and calls you "stupid" and "not a complete human being".
Last question - why are you so hostile and rude about this subject Dave?
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Yes, that's correct. I is do is believe is that is.
Hmmm....english teacher you say? Good luck.
Wait. Better yet, I KNOW the willfully ignorant are not complete human beings. Reason is the trait that separates us from lower animals; when Creationists and other ignoramuses don't use it, they no longer deserve the title "human".
Have you ever heard of the "capital sins" Dave? You should check out the one titled "Pride". I believe you'll recognize it instantly. But anyways - do you think you could apply a bit of that "reason" you speak of instead of these insults?
But keep up with your liberal claptrap, likwid.
What "liberal claptrap" Dave? Can you just spell out your argument? For a change?
See how our society, our supreme system of capitalism, responds to moral relativism and downright individual stupidity.
Where is the "moral relativism"? Think you could manage answering that one?
"Downright individual stupidity" - would that be someone with an attitude like yours? Someone who avoids the debate and instead insults like you're doing right now?
Send me a postcard.
I'm not sure they let people in mental wards receive postcards. Looks like you're out of luck.
Dave
· 4 years ago
You believe that anybody who doesn't believe what you do is "stupid" and is "not a complete human being".
Yes, that's correct. I is do is believe is that is.
Wait. Better yet, I KNOW the willfully ignorant are not complete human beings. Reason is the trait that separates us from lower animals; when Creationists and other ignoramuses don't use it, they no longer deserve the title "human".
But keep up with your liberal claptrap, likwid. See how our society, our supreme system of capitalism, responds to moral relativism and downright individual stupidity. Send me a postcard.
Dave
· 4 years ago
Have you ever heard of the "capital sins" Dave? You should check out the one titled "Pride". I believe you'll recognize it instantly.
I'm very familiar with pride, for it is our highest virtue; it separates excellence from mediocrity. Altruism is our vilest sin.
While we're on it, only Christianity could create a system whereby pride in one's work and one's self is a "sin"; because only Christianity requires the destruction of self-esteem for acceptance. People who are proud of their accomplishments don't require salvation; there is nothing to "save" them from. As Nietzsche wrote, it was Christianity which first brought sin into the world.
You wrote
"Downright individual stupidity" - would that be someone with an attitude like yours? Someone who avoids the debate and instead insults like you're doing right now?
You wrote
I'm not sure they let people in mental wards receive postcards. Looks like you're out of luck.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
I'm very familiar with pride, for it is our highest virtue; it separates excellence from mediocrity.
No it doesn't. Deeds seperate excellence from mediocrity.
Altruism is our vilest sin.
Really? Explain.
While we're on it, only Christianity could create a system whereby pride in one's work and one's self is a "sin"; because only Christianity requires the destruction of self-esteem for acceptance.
Umm...dude, the pride referred to here is excessive admiration of one's self. A little bit of pride is healthy.
People who are proud of their accomplishments don't require salvation; there is nothing to "save" them from.
So one could be a serial killer proud of his serial killing work and all is fine and dandy. Okay. I thank you for allowing me this peek into your mind.
You wrote
Yep. I sure did write that Dave. After hearing from you that one is "stupid" and "not a complete human being" if they don't believe what you believe, and that I am somehow engaging in "moral relativism and downright individual stupidity" (you fail to explain how I noticed even when called upon to explain nurmerous times), what did you expect me to say?
You're pretty hostile to people who believe in a higher power Dave. Why? Do you feel threatened? Good grief,...we're talking about most of the world here.
Dave
· 4 years ago
Altruism is our vilest sin.
Really? Explain.
Our supreme goal in life is to achieve happiness through rational self-interest. The chief goal of altruism, nay, the definition of altruism, is that to be moral one must live FOR OTHERS in society. This is a contradiction, as black & white as it gets. Since rational self-interest is a virtue, altruism is a sin. When you put the happiness of others before the happiness of yourself, when you put the 'giving away' of goods before the creation of them, you have failed as a human being.
Our system of capitalism is based on this concept, which is why laissez-faire capitalism is the only succesful economic system.
Umm...dude, the pride referred to here is excessive admiration of one's self. A little bit of pride is healthy.
No. This is as black & white as it gets. Pride and selfishness are virtues. Selflessness and altruism are vices. (This is example #421 of your moral relativism.)
From Ayn Rand: When a man declares: "There are no blacks and whites, only grays" he is making a psychological confession, and what he means is: "I am unwilling to be wholly good; please do not regard me as wholly evil!"
You're pretty hostile to people who believe in a higher power Dave. Why?
They have slowed down the progress of humanity.
Do you feel threatened?
Only force threatens me.
we're talking about most of the world here
Non sequitur.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Our supreme goal in life is to achieve happiness through rational self-interest. The chief goal of altruism, nay, the definition of altruism, is that to be moral one must live FOR OTHERS in society. This is a contradiction, as black & white as it gets. Since rational self-interest is a virtue, altruism is a sin. When you put the happiness of others before the happiness of yourself, when you put the ‘giving away' of goods before the creation of them, you have failed as a human being.
So what you're saying is that someone like Mother Theresa is the epitome of sin. You should really think that position over.
No. This is as black & white as it gets. Pride and selfishness are virtues. Selflessness and altruism are vices.
Again, thanks for the peek into your mind.
(This is example #421 of your moral relativism.)
Define "moral relativism" for me. You seem to have the opposite definition of the real one. Just want to make sure.
They have slowed down the progress of humanity.
How?
2Hotel9
· 4 years ago
Altruism is all well and good, until you are standing there with nothing and the people you have spent your life helping do nothing for you. Or your children. What then?
Dave
· 4 years ago
So what you're saying is that someone like Mother Theresa is the epitome of sin. You should really think that position over.
You have provided me with no reasons to do so.
Again, thanks for the peek into your mind.
I granted you that peek so you could live to your potential. I deserve no thanks.
Define "moral relativism" for me. You seem to have the opposite definition of the real one. Just want to make sure.
"In philosophy, Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references." -from wikipedia.
Generally, I converse with adults, so definitions aren't necessary. I'll try lowering my thought processes to your level, if you'd prefer.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
At the risk of having all of my subscriptions removed again: is there a way to un-subscribe from a topic?
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
She contributed nothing to society.
Nothing? She tended to the sick among a lot of other things.
If you truly admire capitalism, you MUST regard her actions as sinful.
No. If your argument is that, let's say Donald Trump, does more for society than Mother Theresa, then I would agree with your position. But to say that she was "sinful" because of, why again? "Selflessness and altruism are vices"? That doesn't wash or make sense.
But far be it for me to disagree with you Dave. You look down upon anybody who disagrees with your almighty opinions.
Dave
· 4 years ago
Could you just explain how someone like Mother Theresa is the epitome of sin (as per your "altruism is a sin" claim)?
She contributed nothing to society. She made no goods, she produced nothing, she created nothing. She lived entirely for other people, ignoring any benefit to her self.
If you truly admire capitalism, you MUST regard her actions as sinful. If everyone lived like her, we would still live in tents.
Dave
· 4 years ago
But far be it for me to disagree with you Dave. You look down upon anybody who disagrees with your almighty opinions.
And they're not "opinions", any more than evolution is an "opinion". They are observations of the world.
That's correct. I'm not a moral relativist.
That doesn't wash or make sense.
It requires Reason to comprehend, so I understand.
Seth Williams
· 4 years ago
This is as black & white as it gets. Pride and selfishness are virtues. Selflessness and altruism are vices.
Greed is good...eh, Mr. Gekko? Well, I disagree. Greed (the sin) causes personal unhappiness and social discord by informing the individual that more is never enough. There is nothing wrong with having desires and trying to bound those desires, yet greed tells us that desire cannot be bounded. Greed threatens to make us all like Tantalus, always reaching but never satisfying our hunger or slaking our thirst.
Pride preceeds a fall; while I'd say that there is nothing wrong in taking pride in one's works and abilities, Pride (the sin) comes into play when one's reach exceed's one's grasp. Pride tells us that we can commit any act without fear of retribution or consequence, for our abilities and wit are simply to great to get caught up short. Too much personal pride makes us like Narcissius, social skills wasting away as we primp and preen, no suitor ever a match for our own self-love. The over-proud individual tends to be a boor, not to mention a bore.
Selflessness and altruism are not sins, unless they are simply a mask for pride (which is a sin).
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
You have provided me with no reasons to do so.
Could you just explain how someone like Mother Theresa is the epitome of sin (as per your "altruism is a sin" claim)?
I granted you that peek so you could live to your potential. I deserve no thanks.
"Pride and selfishness are virtues. Selflessness and altruism are vices." = does not equal living up to anybody's potential unless, of course, one is evil.
Generally, I converse with adults, so definitions aren't necessary. I'll try lowering my thought processes to your level, if you'd prefer.
Uh huh. Whatever. I have to ask for your definitions because the real one doesn't apply. But we know how you think: "You are not a complete human being" if you disagree and all that. Very adult-like way of thinking Dave. Could you just continue to insult instead of explaining yourself? I find that you make my points for me with every comment of yours and do untold damage to your points.
Dave
· 4 years ago
Greed (the sin) causes personal unhappiness and social discord by informing the individual that more is never enough.
There is never enough. We can always increase production. As humans, we must.
There is nothing wrong with having desires and trying to bound those desires, yet greed tells us that desire cannot be bounded. Greed threatens to make us all like Tantalus, always reaching but never satisfying our hunger or slaking our thirst.
Altruism makes us all like Sisyphus, with all our resources used for no purpose.
Pride preceeds a fall; while I'd say that there is nothing wrong in taking pride in one's works and abilities, Pride (the sin) comes into play when one's reach exceed's one's grasp. Pride tells us that we can commit any act without fear of retribution or consequence, for our abilities and wit are simply to great to get caught up short.
Pride may tell us that, but pride used in conjunction with Reason fixes all.
Too much personal pride makes us like Narcissius, social skills wasting away as we primp and preen, no suitor ever a match for our own self-love.
A lack of pride, however, makes us communists, so ashamed of our skills that we believe collectivism is the only way we can be succesful.
Rob
· 4 years ago
At the risk of having all of my subscriptions removed again: is there a way to un-subscribe from a topic?
There is an unsubscribe link at the bottom of every email. In addition to that there is a "Manage Subscriptions" link at the bottom of the comments section of every post you're subscribed to. You can click that link and pick and choose the posts you want to be subscribed to.
Let me know if you have any troubles.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Dave said, And they're not "opinions", any more than evolution is an "opinion". They are observations of the world.
I've said it once already, perhaps you missed it: Evolution is a fact only so far as we can evolve. What you haven't proved, and what you can't prove, is that evolution is all there is.
That's correct. I'm not a moral relativist.
What are you talking about Dave? I didn't say one way or another.
It requires Reason to comprehend, so I understand.
How about you explain it Dave? Do you think you could manage that or shall I expect another elitist comment?
Altruism makes us all like Sisyphus, with all our resources used for no purpose.
Charities are out of the question then, right? It's a "sin" according to you.
Pride may tell us that, but pride used in conjunction with Reason fixes all.
How about you define "Reason" for us Dave.
A lack of pride, however, makes us communists, so ashamed of our skills that we believe collectivism is the only way we can be succesful.
Hahaha! You're getting kookier and kookier.
Natty Dark
· 4 years ago
I would like to invoke the wisdom of the irreverent Cindy Sheehan:
"The so-called religious right doesn't have a monopoly on God."
I wish the media would cover her words in more detail. But I know why they don't.
Natty Dark
· 4 years ago
Dave -
To say that Mother Theresa contributed nothing is to say that all Ghandi did was sit on his tush - clearly an ignorant remark.
I say this with the full knowledge that many teachers are useless: the longevity of influence that a good teacher has is incomprehensible.
Put into Capitalist terms - if you can produce 'x' amount of goods per hour, you are worth 'y'. However, of you can teach 'n' number of people to produce 'x' amount of goods per hour, you are worth 'n' x 'y'.
I may have shot over your head, so let me put it in layman's terms:
What Mother Theresa taught us as a global civilization is incomprehensible to even the master of algebra. And it has nothing to do with manufacturing.
All Comments
In fact. Here's the deal. These "scientists" or mystics or whatever they are seem to be smart.
Here's the deal. If they can tell me what the temperature is going to be on the top of the hour, every hour for tomorrow, maybe I'll believe them what the weather's going to be like in 200 hundred years.
While they're at it they can tell us for certain where Hurrican Rita is going to make landfall.
Or we know that the weather was warmer and cooler in the past. Maybe they can explain why?
Or they could explain why it appears that the rate of warming was higher before World War II than since.
Or they could simply explain where the white goes where snow melts.
Is a point I've been making for a long time. Sadly, these people just don't seem to get it.
Yet another question; is global warming the natural order of things? Everyone knows the Earth has gone through several ice ages; which by definition means that there have been warming periods after the ice age. Can these be blamed on human activity?
At a minimum, a case can be made to have cleaner fossil fuel burning technology. China uses a lot of coal which does have know health effects. See Bad air drifts across Pacific as an example.
In my judgement, the case for minimizing pollution from fossil fuels is a much stronger scientific case than the one that says burning fossil fuels causes global warming.
Many have proposed that nuclear energy use be increased. It helps address C02 and pollution emissions; but with its own problems as well. There's no free lunch.
Bottom-line...human activity is not going to go away and we are integral to life on the Earth. The first cave man to use a fire pit to cook a meal started changing the 'natural order' of things. We know that human activity is a two-edge sword with some unintended consequences. We have to use technology and 'brain' power to develop cost/benefit analyses and continually adjust as we gather more information.
But you're also implying that you know more about global warming and climate change than the National Academy of Science, MIT, The American Institute of Physics, the editors of the Encyclopedia of Global Change, and the editors of the Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather.
I mean, these folks are only respected scientists with advanced degrees and years of research and experience. On the other hand, you read an article on NewsMax so obviously your opinion is just as valid---if not more valid---than theirs.
You're being a tad hubristic, n'est pas?
Is that what you're telling us?
Are you saying that the entire world scientific community has been "taught with disinformation" and are "misinforming others?"
Because if you are, you're implying a staggering worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of scholars and researchers designed to slightly impact the P&L statements of energy brokers and stock traders.
Which, if you'll excuse the colloquialism, sounds a little bit crazy.
Why is it so hard to believe that those who were taught with disinformation may be misinforming others?
Since like 45% of Americans believe that. Yikes.
it doesn't take a worldwide conspiracy. Just a poor education system, some well-placed media bias, and a lot of repitition.
Perhaps you would rather drink the kool aid than question that which is put before you. How's the weather in Guyana?
I had a discussion with a Yale grad, she ran the numbers on global warming. It was intellectually stimulating for about 10 minutes. She saw the data, after all. Who am I to question it? I asked her if the person who gave her the data might be biased. I asked her if there was any way to verify the data before she got it. Another unanswered question was whether she saw ANY data that was contrary to her findings. When I walked away from her, shaking my head in amazement that such a closed-minded ignoramus could be a Yale graduate, she was repeating for the 10th time, "I know what I know!"
Do you know what you know? More importantly, do you know what you don't know?
I prefer the way Bill Hicks described it. His stand-up about dinosaur bones being placed there to test the faith of Christians is priceless. "Oh, so he's a prankster God!"
I can assure you that "the general concensus of scientists" is NOT a flat earth in a geocentric universe. Not in this century or outside the White House, at least.
You seem to be basing your whole "well-placed philosophy" on:
1) your misunderstanding of the Socratic method,
2) that ever-present excuse of the Bushies---bias! Horrible, hideous bias!---and
3) an encounter with some chick from Yale.
You're right about one thing---I don't know much about global climate patterns. That's why I rely on the folks I cited above.
You choose to rely on---well, who exactly? You're long on pronouncements and short on sources here. Your post reads like regurgitated blogger blather and half-remembered NewsMax, but who knows?
In conclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree---with me relying on science, and you relying on second-rate punditry and your "well-placed philosophy."
I know, I know...All I have to do is shine a tiny bit of light into the dark, dank closet of modern neocon thinking, and they all get so bitchy
You're absolutely right about what happens when "someone uses politics to address science. Data loses its relevance and messengers become targets."
It happened to "Galileo when he presented the theory of the earth not being the center of the universe"---not because he conflicted with prevailing science, but because he conflicted with prevailing dogma.
Today, prevailing science regarding climatology conflicts with the prevailing neocon dogma.
It's obvious from your which side of that conflict you're on, dude, and it's not on the side of math and science.
1) 2) and 3) making assumptions on which you have no clue.
My experience exceeds your assumptions, but laying it out for your inspection will not satisfy you so I will not bother. The word insatiable comes to mind.
My philosophy did not spawn from this chick from Yale. This chick from Yale was one of the authorities on which your beliefs are founded. But then again, you know what you know. How can there be anything else?
My mention on the flat earth theory seems to be beyond your ability to see as an attempt at humor. But this stagnant resilience to consider that the earth is cyclical, and those cycles exceed documented history, is equivalent to locking up Galileo when he presented the theory of the earth not being the center of the universe, or around the time when Christopher Columbus was told by modern science that his boats would fall off the edge of the earth if he sailed too far.
My mention of the Bushies is in response to your constant reference to them - inside the White House - as the epitome of all things stupid, which reeks of your political affiliation. This theory has nothing to do with Dems, or Reps, or who is president.
This is what happens when someone uses politics to address science. Data loses its relevance and messengers become targets.
I may respond to your future posts, or I may not. If I choose to, it will be for my enjoyment, for it is obvious what an act of futility it is.
Weird, huh?
If he is as insulting and closed-minded towards everyone else, it is no surprise he gets the same reaction over and over again.
Asking tough questions improves the science rather than detracting from it.
And anybody who things that one particular scientific viewpoint is gospel is every bit, if not more, dogmatic than the people they are criticizing for asking questions.
... Especially in your case, since you were only able to erect easily slapped down strawman arguments, and added zero new information to the mix.
I happen to think that the scientific evidence in favor of a human component to climate change is much strong that Natty Dark as made out (though I am no climatologist), but he is perfectly entitled to ask reasoned questions, which is all he did.
You're the one who flipped out with the zealot knee-jerk reaction.
No, that's not what he's saying at all. Although I could see how you would want him to say that because you have very little to no argument unless you put up this stupid strawman. What he's basically saying is that man-made global warming is a theory and not a proven fact in any sense of the word. A theory Don. I'll say it again since you seem to be stuck on stupid: a theory. Got it? Good.
Also, natty, the only people still suggesting that "the earth is the flat center of the universe" are the creationists and religious zealots--and, of course, their lapdogs in the White House.
Thanks for showing us once again that you are not a serious person grounded in reality and who will take any and every opportunity to turn things into an ugly political contest.
I can assure you that "the general concensus of scientists" is NOT a flat earth in a geocentric universe. Not in this century or outside the White House, at least.
It's not that way in the White House either. Stop being a jackass.
In conclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree--with me relying on science, and you relying on second-rate punditry and your "well-placed philosophy."
I'll rewrite that so that it makes more sense: "In conclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree--with me relying on science being a hostile jackass, and you relying on second-rate punditry and your 'well-placed philosophy.' questions I can't and won't address."
Today, prevailing science regarding climatology conflicts with the prevailing neocon dogma.
The religious dogma displayed here is coming from you. Natty is questioning your dogma and you have gotten hostile. So you're almost right here, you just had the sides switched.
It's obvious from your which side of that conflict you're on, dude, and it's not on the side of math and science.
Care to explain this Don is do you just say these kinds of things to replace a real argument?
I know, I know...All I have to do is shine a tiny bit of light into the dark, dank closet of modern neocon thinking, and they all get so bitchy
Always a cocksucker, aren't you?
Dave said, Probably would have gone with, "...then the earth is 10,000 years old."
Since like 45% of Americans believe that. Yikes.
Can you prove this Dave? Any hard numbers? Perhaps some poll out there asking this very question?
modern instances said, Bill Hicks was a fuckin genius. It's really scary how prophistic he was.
Could you explain that? Thanks.
Yeah, sure, Captain Reading Comprehension, thats exactly what I meant. Don, if any of the employees I supervise engaged in the same stunning display of cognitive ability you just managed, they'd already be out the in parking lot, pushing carts. And they'd stay there, too, because I can't afford idiots like you in my department.
Now piss off, the adults are trying to have a conversation.
Porkopolis - I think that recurring ice ages are inevitable, but this is merely my belief, roughly substantiated by the ice cores drilled by scientists at the poles. Sun cycles are visible like tree rings in these core samples, and the theories that support the recurring warming/cooling of the planet are compelling. The random act of meteors and asteroids disrupting the cycles cause statistical anomalies that avoid complete predictability. But up until now, as far as we know (note the qualifier, Don?), history has been unable to maintain integrity in data preservation over millenia - or even education continuity to bring these questions past one cycle.
Want an interesting, yet intense read? Check out Herbie Brennan's "The Atlantis Enigma" - not a bible of science, but what a fascinating theory! Found myself re-reading paragraphs just to keep up with the concepts he was throwing out. He uses the Socratic method, which is entertaining, and calls to question much of what modern science has accepted as fact. This book is a topic in itself - I don't accept it as fact, but I would definitely like to hear what others think about it, if you can fathom it.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/EarthSciences/?view=usa&ci=0195108256
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/EarthSciences/Geology/?view=usa&ci=0195094859
...and tell me you know more than they. Everybody here is a frickin analogy queen. This is not an analogical situation. It is a matter of direct cause and effect.
Yes. Direct cause and effect.
Earth is getting warmer.
Mars is also getting warmer.
Increased solar activity.
solar activity = irrelevant.
pollutive output in reaction with the atmosphere and it's cumulative effects = relevant.
Solar activity is "irrelevant" as a cause for a warming Earth? Really? You got any more nuggest of wisdom for us that come from your upside world?
Well now that is a mature response.
CLAP CLAP CLAP
It was a lot better than the usual sticking your head in the sand and saying that the sun is "irrelevant" to global temperatures.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
What a maroon!!!
Your point must be that since there is nothing we can do about the sun, which is not entirely true, we must do everything we can to halt industrial polution.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the statement that less polution is good. We just differ about how many financial burdens we want to put up with the stop X% of polution. What level of polution is acceptable? Where is the cut off point for stifeling development vs technological progression. If we disable our industrial capacity through polution control, how do we endeavor to feed, cloth, home, employ everyone who is already here? How much do we spend on transportation each day? Will that double, triple, quadruple... if we enact the most polution restrictive laws? Will our industry suffer so much that our standard of living declines? Kyoto has this potential. But what level of polutions do we need to reach ecological equalibrium? By many theories, our level of population is not sustainable. Should we start killing people now? Open up the gas chambers again so that our Earth will continue to sustain us for another million years?
Polution is a problem, there is no doubt. How much of a problem is it though? Will it result in a greatly reduced habitable life span for our planet? Or is our planet going through a natural cycle that we are not having much of an impact upon?
You don't know... I don't know... But for every scientist who says that Global Warming because of man is fact, there is one who says otherwise.
The only problem was that they weren't 20,000 climatologists. The majority were social scientists whatever that means.
I recall a fact from a few years ago. There have been 5 climatologists that have received the Nobel Prize.
Two of the five believe in man made global warming.
How do we know that what we do wouldn't make things worse.
likwidshoe wrote:
Sure. This link contains about a half dozen polls, all showing the number ranging from 40-50%, depending on how the question is asked. For example:
NBC News Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). March 8-10, 2005. N=800 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on Earth: evolution or the biblical account of creation?" Asked of those who answered "Biblical account": "And by this do you mean that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh as described in the Book of Genesis, or that God was a divine presence in the formation of the universe?"
Evolution 33%
Biblical account 57% (out of these):
--------------Created in six days 44%
--------------Divine presence 13%
None of the above (vol.) 3
Unsure 7
Why? How does it matter?
Sorry for the bluntness; I hold Reason as our highest goal, and when people abandon it, sadness and anger result.
Why so defensive? It's not like these mentally deficient people overwhelmingly vote for your party, right? ;)
My my,...you sound very elitist Dave. Can't say that I'm surprised though...
Why so defensive? It's not like these mentally deficient people overwhelmingly vote for your party, right? ;)
And an insult to close. Congrats Dave. Pat yourself on the back some more. It suits you well.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Creationists are ignorant to the way the world works. That's not "elitist"; it's a fact. This is above politics; just because Young-Earth Creationists make up a large part of your party's voters is no reason for you to refrain from criticism. You cannot be a champion of Reason if you refuse to condemn irrationality in your peers.And if you are not a chamion of Reason, you are not a complete human being.
Ayn Rand wrote:
Oh yeah? Prove it. Good luck on that one buddy.
That's not "elitist"; it's a fact.
Oh it's a "fact" now. Cool! I'll be waiting for your proof. I can't wait to see the proof of why we exist and the whole purpose of life and how we all came about to be. This will be the first time it has actually been proven beyond all doubt. Can't wait. You're going to answer one of man's oldest questions and give proof.
This is above politics; just because Young-Earth Creationists make up a large part of your party's voters is no reason for you to refrain from criticism.
Please Dave. Enough with the assumptions.
You cannot be a champion of Reason if you refuse to condemn irrationality in your peers.And if you are not a chamion of Reason, you are not a complete human being.
Dave, can you define what "Reason" means in your black and white world? Because in the real world, "reason", or "Reason" if you want to be an elitist prick about it, is defined differently among people. For example, I believe reason shows without a doubt that smaller governments are one of the best insurances of freedom. A lot of your peers disagree and welcome, no - endorse, a big government. What would you say to that? Oh yes... what you would say is that if you disagree, "you are not a complete human being."
And you wonder why I called you elitist.
Because you're afraid to admit that there is an objective reality, that there ARE objective answers to problems, that most issues ARE black and white. You live in a fantasy world of moral relativism, a world where it doesn't matter what facts are--everyone has an opinion, and all opinions are valid. Where objective scientific facts are no different from political theories--where a comparison between Young-Earth Creationism and limited government is valid! Oh, you think the universe is 6,000 years old? Well, that's your opinion, and I value it!
When Edmund the Bastard lamented "the great foppery of the world", he was talking about fools like you and the cockamamie fables you believe.
He had no respect for bunkum; neither do I.
And your reading comprehension is as inept as your scientific knowledge.
Evolution is the fact. I reject determinism, societal and metaphysical; we make our own purpose in life.
Um... I know this was addressed to Liqwid & I'm not actually a Republican, but the facts do say otherwise. Based on the last election exit poll results, about 20% of those who voted for Bush were evangelicals (the dominant component of creationists of course). That's a far cry from "a large part of your party's voters", though still important.
On the other hand, simply because I (so obviously) disagree with them is no reason to insult them. Not much in this world is etched in stone, and they're entitled to their beliefs (just so as they don't try & stuff 'em down my throat).
What makes you think that all creationist Christians vote Republican? Or that all people who believe in creationism are Christians?
There are plenty of Democrats in churches too - ever seen their pamphlets? Those weekly handouts aren't advocating wars in Iraq.
John Kerry was begging to eat that cracker in 2004 (eucharist) - and to legitimately eat it you have to believe in the Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine includes the creationist theory. That is just one Democrat off the top of my head - almost the chief potato, wasn't he?
Let's throw in the nuns at the DC protest this weekend - or my little socialist Catholic friend who voted Democrat. Think they might believe that creationist stuff?
There is a plethora of ignoramii outside of the religious circles as well. Shall we take their votes away? Are you advocating that there be a test before one can vote? Will you construct the test, or shall I?
Point is, there are a LOT of Christians who believe in creationism. You want to point out all the ones that vote Republican, go ahead. How about if we add in the Muslims, since they agree with the same doctrine up until Abraham? How do they tend to vote?
And if you want to talk about living in black and white - as far as tolerance goes - I would say that Islam is as black and white as religions get. Would you agree, infidel?
Not all, but a majority.
Yes.
I see that you can't turn off that elitism. It is what you are. Why do you think I'm afraid of it? I'm just challenging your argument and you come out with the insults. Run out of ammo already?
You live in a fantasy world of moral relativism, a world where it doesn't matter what facts are--everyone has an opinion, and all opinions are valid.
Actually, the truth is the complete opposite of what you just stated. Again, I'm just challenging your argument. I'm still waiting for your "facts".
Where objective scientific facts are no different from political theories--where a comparison between Young-Earth Creationism and limited government is valid!
Where was that comparison? I certainly didn't make it. I was talking about "reason" Dave. Pay attention.
Oh, you think the universe is 6,000 years old? Well, that's your opinion, and I value it!
No you don't. You believe that anybody who doesn't believe what you do is "stupid" and is "not a complete human being".
When Edmund the Bastard lamented "the great foppery of the world", he was talking about fools like you and the cockamamie fables you believe.
More elitism. You're going to make a terrible teacher. Tell me Dave: what do I believe? Because I haven't said. You just assumed once again because I am taking issue with your argument.
And your reading comprehension is as inept as your scientific knowledge.
Huh? Quit dodging and prove your assertions already. We know that you can't, but it will be fun watching you descent into insults. And my reading comprehension seems to be well above yours Mr. Aspiring English Teacher. Ditto for my logic.
Evolution is the fact.
Evolution is a fact only so far as we can evolve. What you haven't proved, and what you can't prove, is that evolution is all there is. Do you disagree or do you just find that "stupid" and have no argument?
I reject determinism, societal and metaphysical; we make our own purpose in life.
That's nice. I hope that nobody comes along and calls you "stupid" and "not a complete human being".
Last question - why are you so hostile and rude about this subject Dave?
Hmmm....english teacher you say? Good luck.
Wait. Better yet, I KNOW the willfully ignorant are not complete human beings. Reason is the trait that separates us from lower animals; when Creationists and other ignoramuses don't use it, they no longer deserve the title "human".
Have you ever heard of the "capital sins" Dave? You should check out the one titled "Pride". I believe you'll recognize it instantly. But anyways - do you think you could apply a bit of that "reason" you speak of instead of these insults?
But keep up with your liberal claptrap, likwid.
What "liberal claptrap" Dave? Can you just spell out your argument? For a change?
See how our society, our supreme system of capitalism, responds to moral relativism and downright individual stupidity.
Where is the "moral relativism"? Think you could manage answering that one?
"Downright individual stupidity" - would that be someone with an attitude like yours? Someone who avoids the debate and instead insults like you're doing right now?
Send me a postcard.
I'm not sure they let people in mental wards receive postcards. Looks like you're out of luck.
Yes, that's correct. I is do is believe is that is.
Wait. Better yet, I KNOW the willfully ignorant are not complete human beings. Reason is the trait that separates us from lower animals; when Creationists and other ignoramuses don't use it, they no longer deserve the title "human".
But keep up with your liberal claptrap, likwid. See how our society, our supreme system of capitalism, responds to moral relativism and downright individual stupidity. Send me a postcard.
While we're on it, only Christianity could create a system whereby pride in one's work and one's self is a "sin"; because only Christianity requires the destruction of self-esteem for acceptance. People who are proud of their accomplishments don't require salvation; there is nothing to "save" them from. As Nietzsche wrote, it was Christianity which first brought sin into the world.
You wrote
You wrote
No it doesn't. Deeds seperate excellence from mediocrity.
Altruism is our vilest sin.
Really? Explain.
While we're on it, only Christianity could create a system whereby pride in one's work and one's self is a "sin"; because only Christianity requires the destruction of self-esteem for acceptance.
Umm...dude, the pride referred to here is excessive admiration of one's self. A little bit of pride is healthy.
People who are proud of their accomplishments don't require salvation; there is nothing to "save" them from.
So one could be a serial killer proud of his serial killing work and all is fine and dandy. Okay. I thank you for allowing me this peek into your mind.
You wrote
Yep. I sure did write that Dave. After hearing from you that one is "stupid" and "not a complete human being" if they don't believe what you believe, and that I am somehow engaging in "moral relativism and downright individual stupidity" (you fail to explain how I noticed even when called upon to explain nurmerous times), what did you expect me to say?
You're pretty hostile to people who believe in a higher power Dave. Why? Do you feel threatened? Good grief,...we're talking about most of the world here.
Our system of capitalism is based on this concept, which is why laissez-faire capitalism is the only succesful economic system.
No. This is as black & white as it gets. Pride and selfishness are virtues. Selflessness and altruism are vices. (This is example #421 of your moral relativism.)
From Ayn Rand: When a man declares: "There are no blacks and whites, only grays" he is making a psychological confession, and what he means is: "I am unwilling to be wholly good; please do not regard me as wholly evil!"
They have slowed down the progress of humanity.
Only force threatens me.
Non sequitur.
So what you're saying is that someone like Mother Theresa is the epitome of sin. You should really think that position over.
No. This is as black & white as it gets. Pride and selfishness are virtues. Selflessness and altruism are vices.
Again, thanks for the peek into your mind.
(This is example #421 of your moral relativism.)
Define "moral relativism" for me. You seem to have the opposite definition of the real one. Just want to make sure.
They have slowed down the progress of humanity.
How?
I granted you that peek so you could live to your potential. I deserve no thanks.
"In philosophy, Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references." -from wikipedia.
Generally, I converse with adults, so definitions aren't necessary. I'll try lowering my thought processes to your level, if you'd prefer.
Nothing? She tended to the sick among a lot of other things.
If you truly admire capitalism, you MUST regard her actions as sinful.
No. If your argument is that, let's say Donald Trump, does more for society than Mother Theresa, then I would agree with your position. But to say that she was "sinful" because of, why again? "Selflessness and altruism are vices"? That doesn't wash or make sense.
But far be it for me to disagree with you Dave. You look down upon anybody who disagrees with your almighty opinions.
If you truly admire capitalism, you MUST regard her actions as sinful. If everyone lived like her, we would still live in tents.
It requires Reason to comprehend, so I understand.
Pride preceeds a fall; while I'd say that there is nothing wrong in taking pride in one's works and abilities, Pride (the sin) comes into play when one's reach exceed's one's grasp. Pride tells us that we can commit any act without fear of retribution or consequence, for our abilities and wit are simply to great to get caught up short. Too much personal pride makes us like Narcissius, social skills wasting away as we primp and preen, no suitor ever a match for our own self-love. The over-proud individual tends to be a boor, not to mention a bore.
Selflessness and altruism are not sins, unless they are simply a mask for pride (which is a sin).
Could you just explain how someone like Mother Theresa is the epitome of sin (as per your "altruism is a sin" claim)?
I granted you that peek so you could live to your potential. I deserve no thanks.
"Pride and selfishness are virtues. Selflessness and altruism are vices." = does not equal living up to anybody's potential unless, of course, one is evil.
Generally, I converse with adults, so definitions aren't necessary. I'll try lowering my thought processes to your level, if you'd prefer.
Uh huh. Whatever. I have to ask for your definitions because the real one doesn't apply. But we know how you think: "You are not a complete human being" if you disagree and all that. Very adult-like way of thinking Dave. Could you just continue to insult instead of explaining yourself? I find that you make my points for me with every comment of yours and do untold damage to your points.
Altruism makes us all like Sisyphus, with all our resources used for no purpose.
Pride may tell us that, but pride used in conjunction with Reason fixes all.
A lack of pride, however, makes us communists, so ashamed of our skills that we believe collectivism is the only way we can be succesful.
There is an unsubscribe link at the bottom of every email. In addition to that there is a "Manage Subscriptions" link at the bottom of the comments section of every post you're subscribed to. You can click that link and pick and choose the posts you want to be subscribed to.
Let me know if you have any troubles.
I've said it once already, perhaps you missed it: Evolution is a fact only so far as we can evolve. What you haven't proved, and what you can't prove, is that evolution is all there is.
That's correct. I'm not a moral relativist.
What are you talking about Dave? I didn't say one way or another.
It requires Reason to comprehend, so I understand.
How about you explain it Dave? Do you think you could manage that or shall I expect another elitist comment?
Altruism makes us all like Sisyphus, with all our resources used for no purpose.
Charities are out of the question then, right? It's a "sin" according to you.
Pride may tell us that, but pride used in conjunction with Reason fixes all.
How about you define "Reason" for us Dave.
A lack of pride, however, makes us communists, so ashamed of our skills that we believe collectivism is the only way we can be succesful.
Hahaha! You're getting kookier and kookier.
I wish the media would cover her words in more detail. But I know why they don't.
To say that Mother Theresa contributed nothing is to say that all Ghandi did was sit on his tush - clearly an ignorant remark.
I say this with the full knowledge that many teachers are useless: the longevity of influence that a good teacher has is incomprehensible.
Put into Capitalist terms - if you can produce 'x' amount of goods per hour, you are worth 'y'. However, of you can teach 'n' number of people to produce 'x' amount of goods per hour, you are worth 'n' x 'y'.
I may have shot over your head, so let me put it in layman's terms:
What Mother Theresa taught us as a global civilization is incomprehensible to even the master of algebra. And it has nothing to do with manufacturing.