Honestly, this is a more appropriate description of your thinking on climate change, Kevin, as well as others here. I think it's interesting that every time any discussion of climate change comes up, Al Gore is personally attacked. It's as if it's more important to prove Gore wrong than find out what is actually going on. Actually, it's more important to prove any Democrat or progressive wrong than do something to benefit this country. And, if a Dem/Prog does end up being right then....POOF!...they're still wrong. Its's like magic ;)
Not that it would matter anyway. Volumes of data could be presented to most of you here to prove that climate change is happening and it is man made. Yet, you "scientists" would never accept it. The information would flow into your brain and the following results would spit out
1. The data has been forged by religous zealots.
2. Attack Al Gore!
3. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
4. Liberals are making money off of this and burning the American taxpayer.
I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here. I'm not sure if it is man made or not. It's a theory backed up by some evidence at this point. I'm not willing to make any judgment until more data is gathered and who knows how much the theory could alter at that point or if an answer will even present itself. That is, after all, the way of science. 8-)
Volumes of data could be presented to most of you here to prove that climate change is happening and it is man made. Yet, you "scientists" would never accept it.
As usual for you, utter lies. "Climate Change" is bullshit, as well. Pick one. Is it "Global Warming" or not? "Climate Change" is the weasel-word for "Oh, shit, this isn't working out, use something that works no matter what."
Because you don't understand science, you don't understand critical thinking, and you're a talentless hack who bases his whole life off of move scripts.
But even more than that, you've missed a huge point. Even if you could prove that Global Warming - I'll use the term for you - was "happening" and and was "man-made", you still have to prove that's a bad thing. You have skipped that step entirely, into "Well, of course giving power to the government to control things is good, how can it not be?"
I've pointed this out to you before, but you're too damn ignorant to pay attention and say "You know, that's a point." The best damn thing we can do for our species - and most others - is raise the damn temperature a smidge. More food. More rain. Less deserts.
Now, assuming you start quoting someone who knows what the hell he or she is talking about, and who says that not only are we causing warming, but that's it's detrimental, now you still have to prove that what you're proposing to change is 1) effective, 2) costs less than the alternative, and 3) is adoptable.
You've jumped past a LOT of scientific conclusions, assumed some things, and then skipped all of those steps. Bjorn Lormborg, who isn't a Global Warming "denier" got excoriated because he dared to point out that economically, the costs of the proposed "solutions" far outweighed any calculated costs.
Just as above, even if you had something that was effective, even if it cost less than the alternative(s), if you can't get consensus for it, it's useless.
Well, to us, it is, because we understand how things work. You just look at the Chinese system, where they decree something, and shoot you if you don't do it their way and sigh, and smile and wistfully say "If only Obama could do that to those dumb bastards...."
Never once paying attention to the historical record of that thought process, and actively ignoring the people pointing directly to it in history books.
That's why it's a utter lie to say that you couldn't convince us - you don't even understand what you'd have to prove. So you're incompetent to judge.
I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here.
Teacher boy, you just can't get it right, can you? You just cannot bring yourself to articulate the other guys argument correctly.
Al Gore is a jackass, just as you are a jackass. Look the word up. He loses all credibility by repeating the mantra, "The science is settled," which is an oxymoron. He doesn't know what science is, and you don't know what evidence is. You both demonstrate the truth of that repeatedly.
The argument is that the global warmenerists HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE.
The evidence has surfaced, and is not denied, which shows that their pronouncements are the culmination of escalation of hyperbole, originating from off-the-cuff and other such statements, and are not the result of peer-reviewed science. The dead giveaway, recognized and articulated by us long ago, is that they refuse to release the data on which their pronouncements were based. Scientists do precisely the opposite; such is the nature of the scientific method.
The pronouncements of the global warmenerists, in particular Al Gore, are based on politics, not science.
Now, we find the most blitheringly stupid thing you have ever posted in Kevin's parlor. Begin with:
"I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here."
No, you are irrational beyond measure, as you have demonstrated and we have analyzed for nearly three years.
Then we have this:
"I'm not sure if it is man made or not. It's a theory backed up by some evidence at this point. I'm not willing to make any judgment until more data is gathered and who knows how much the theory could alter at that point or if an answer will even present itself. That is, after all, the way of science."
That describes ME, teacher boy, except that I haven't seen any hard evidence it is so, and I've seen lots of evidence that it is not so, such as the global cooling of this century. The fact that all states (all except Hawaii) now have snow on the ground is hilarious in context, provided one doesn't have to shovel it.
Can you possibly get any more stupid? Is your reading comprehension really that shitty?
You badly need the services of a good psychiatrist. There are medications that can help you. Go.
Here's the deal, slick: The hypothesis is scientifically UNLIKELY. The evidence is, at the very best,INCONCLUSIVE, but it has been DEMONSTRATED that scientists have manipulated that data to produce the results that they expected, rather than the reality that we're experiencing.
NOT ONE of the accepted climate models (of which there are apparently dozens) predicted a decade-long pause in warming. In science, this generally disproves a hypothesis, and generates a "That's interesting" reaction rather than a cover-up and data manipulation. The "solutions" required to "prevent" catastrophe are A) not solutions, but trade-offs [and bad ones at that] B) economy-destroying, C) totalitarian, and D) impossible to enforce worldwide. Therefore they are at best USELESS, and at worst destructive only to Western industrialized nations. (I point you to the story - that you oddly have not commented on - where the Chinese government just made a twenty-year deal to import 30,000,000 TONNES (that's metric - 2,200lbs per metric ton) of coal annually from Australia to run their POWER PLANTS. China - the country you keep pointing to swooningly that is so enthusiastic about "green" technology! China - the country that's going to release vast amounts of CO2 regardless of what the rest of the world wants or thinks.)
Is the climate warming? Has been since the Little Ice Age. Will it get warmer than it is now? Has before, no reason to believe it won't again. Does CO2 contribute? Doubtless. How much? Well, depends on who you listen to, but apparently far less than all the failed global warming models currently in vogue predict. Will the climate run away in an unstoppable positive-feedback loop? Read the linked piece.
That's the basis for science, right there in a simple diagram.
I know, you don't know what those words mean - but that's not our fault. We've explained them time and time again.
Especially "Hypothesis" - which in your lexicon means "Some shit I just came up with that contradicts some other shit I said just a minute ago, or maybe even just a sentence ago"
But not the scientific lexicon.
If the hypothesis does not or can not predict behavior, it is incorrect. (There are hypothesis that cannot (yet) be tested, and as such they remain theoretical. Trust me. It's far, far, far beyond your ken.)
Period. Fucking. Period.
Every one of those "hypothesis" requires constant "hand fitting" to try and deal with the data that doesn't care what your personal proclivities are. Which is why the CRU and NASA and all these other places have been obfuscating the data, hiding it, deleting it.
Why?
Because it demonstrates how bad their lies are.
If they had been approaching this honestly, they wouldn't need to do that.
We've heard the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T SURRENDER OUR SOVEREIGNTY TO A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!" bit before, and many of us more than once. Perhaps - just perhaps - this is the last time the Boy that Cried Wolf will shout, but I'm not holding my breath. Experience tells me that there's no "there" there. You remember "experience," don't you? That's the thing that modern progressives pooh-pooh in favor of kow-towing to those of the "cultivated mind."
The science AIN'T THERE. WE KNOW IT. YOU DON'T. We OBJECT to attempts to re-engineer ENTIRE SOCIETIES based on LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS JUST IN CASE. Hell, we object to attempts to re-engineer entire societies JUST ON PRINCIPLE.
And that, sir, is the fundamental difference between us, and why you will never "reach" us, and we will never "reach" you. Our First Principles are diametrically opposed. You cannot "explain it better" and make us understand the superiority of your position, and vice-versa. You are NOT the "only rational one here" no matter how much you want to believe that. It is quite possible (though you are unable to grasp it) for different people to be perfectly rational and reach different conclusions given the same evidence WHEN YOUR FUNDAMENTAL WORLDVIEW IS DIFFERENT FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S. (I realize that shouting at you is completely useless, but it makes me feel better.)
The people here (other than yourself) live by one fundamental test: DOES IT WORK? I submit that our worldview produces results that pass that test far more often than does yours. Ours isn't perfect (far from it, in fact), but when we fail we're far less likely to respond by merely turning up the power unless experience tells us that is what we ought to do.
Remember how "The Surge" in Iraq was a failure? Joe Biden (you remember Joe Biden, the Vice President?) said that it was a failure. The Left was certain that it was a failure. It was the classic "escalation of failure," no? Only it wasn't.
That's only one example of literally thousands that have been explained in these comments over the previous three years. I'm not going to waste additional time doing more of the same. Personally, Markadelphia, I'm done with you. I will not prevent you from commenting here so long as you remain reasonably polite. If U-J and DJ and Bilgeman and others want to continue to bounce the Clue-Bat™ off your skull ineffectually, they're more than welcome to. When you post something as blindingly idiotic as "I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here." I will be more than happy to ridicule you publicly for the sheer joy of it, but I'm done trying to change your mind.
Sowell is right. There's no point in talking to you. Goodbye.
"DJ, as far as you, Kevin, and most everyone here are concerned...no matter how many facts they present...THEY NEVER WILL."
Once again, you cough up yet another instance of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. Once again, you simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like being accused of.
You remember your Standard Responses, don't you? Once again, they are all catalogued at:
For nearly three years, we have demonstrated to you that evidence matters to us, and you have demonstrated that evidence doesn't matter to you. You descend to new depths of incredibility nearly every time time you comment here. It's difficult to imagine credibility less than zero, given that it is measured on a scale of zero to one, but you work hard at it.
Kevin stated, "I'm done trying to change your mind."
I quit trying to do that long ago, and I stated so. Your mind won't change. You will not integrate new knowledge into old knowledge if it is contrary to that old knowledge, and you will not discard knowledge that is demonstrated by others to be incorrect. You are driven by a fragile little ego that won't let you because you CANNOT admit significant error.
Kevin also stated, "When you post something as blindingly idiotic as 'I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here.' I will be more than happy to ridicule you publicly for the sheer joy of it ..."
Anyone who might read this and wonder, "Why are they beating up on this guy?" is invited to go read your comments here, beginning about April of 2007. The ink is dry, liar boy.
I wouldn't call it "sheer joy" to ridicule you publicly, but given how strongly you invite it, crave it, bait it, and keep on coming back for more of it, then I see nothing whatever wrong with it.
Volumes of data could be presented to most of you here to prove that climate change is happening and it is man made.
So why hasn't it been? If the data is so good and so conclusive, why is all the public has gotten been speculation passed off as fact, student dissertations passed off as fact, unsubstantiated claims of activists passed off as fact, flat-out deliberate liespassed off as fact? To be fair, the railroad engineer in charge of the IPCC has done an incredible job of railroading, but that doesn't make him a scientist, does it?
As for Al Gore... does anyone actually care about Al Gore anymore?
You keep talking about proof... the statements I have made above can be proven, can be verified in seconds with a simple google search. Therefore whether AGW is a valid theory or not, the people who have pushed for political action based on AGW theory over the last decade have been proven to be untrustworthy.
Personally I'm willing to be generous and give Mr. Gore the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to assume that he's merely a dumbass rather than an active participant, even though both his personal commitment to the lifestyle he insists the rest of us must follow in order to avoid AGW and the investments he has made (and stands to profit handsomely from) based on the legislation he tells us we must enact in order to avoid AGW both strongly suggest otherwise.
But whether AGW is a valid theory or not, none of that changes the proven fact that Gore and others (among them you) have spent years cheerleading a deliberate hoax based on nothing more than speculation and fearmongering. Gore, specifically, has been cheerleading that hoax (and profiting handsomely from it) for over a decade now. That is proven.
Call that an attack if you wish, but it's no more of an "attack" than calling a wino a wino is an attack, or calling a white guy a white guy is an attack. It's an accurate description of his (and your) actions. If accuracy is damaging to you, well that's hardly anyone's fault but your own, is it?
What I find deliciously ironic about all this is that the people who have spent the last decade trying to sell this hoax have the chutzpah to call themselves "the reality-based community". To which I feel the only sensible reply is, "What color is the sky on your world?"
Sure I do, Thimblewit, but the words "could" and "be" do not appear together anywhere in the referenced comment, and more to the point nowhere in the specific statements I quoted.
"Does that mean I'm going to get kicked off if I express myself in the way DJ does? (e.g. calling him a jackass or a blithering idiot). I just want to see if different rules apply to me."
"Kevin, I don't mind the name calling directed at me, mind you."
Except for mentioning it every chance you get.
"I will continue to make every effort to not attack people personally on here."
That's true...because doing so takes sand you don't have. You'll just say "some here are like Al-Qaeda!" and when called on it, "Sure you want to go down that road?"
"Actually, it's more important to prove any Democrat or progressive wrong than do something to benefit this country."
I dunno about Democrats per se, but proving progressives wrong and benefitting this country are correlated north of 0.8, and statistically significant at p<.01. The data supporting this conclusion are at least as good (and as available) as Phil Jones's data.
I will not prevent you from commenting here so long as you remain reasonably polite.
Does that mean I'm going to get kicked off if I express myself in the way DJ does? (e.g. calling him a jackass or a blithering idiot). I just want to see if different rules apply to me.
Now, let's take a look at this comment from Kevin....
When you post something as blindingly idiotic as "I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here...
and this one....
We've heard the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T SURRENDER OUR SOVEREIGNTY TO A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!" bit before, and many of us more than once.
Do you see the irony in both of these statements at all, Kevin?
Does that mean I'm going to get kicked off if I express myself in the way DJ does? (e.g. calling him a jackass or a blithering idiot). I just want to see if different rules apply to me.
Nope, you're more than welcome to respond in kind. However, if the comments turn into nothing but a flame-fest, I will intervene - on BOTH parties.
Bear in mind one thing: It is you doing the baiting here. I'd say three years of this indicates that I've treated you fairly. And both "jackass" and "blithering idiot" are more descriptive than pejorative when it comes to you, Markadelphia. ;)
"DJ, you seek to disprove me by...immediately personally attacking Al Gore."
No, I simply find the similarity of you two amusing, and I express it by stating my opinion.
Your comment is, yet again, an instance of your Standard Response #6, in which you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet another straw man. You can't help yourself, can you?
Me:"That describes ME, teacher boy, except that I haven't seen any hard evidence it is...
Marxisanidiot:"RATF-LMAO!!!! With your bias, DJ? It's will NEVER HAPPEN."
What this shows beyond any doubt is that you haven't read what I've commented here on the subject of global warmenering. Amazing, ain't it? You comment on what you haven't read. Your stupidity continues ever onward, ever deeper ...
Moreover, a statement of such preposterous syntax as "It's will never happen" shows that you don't even read what YOU write.
I was going to comment on something, but this line, 'I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here.' , makes me start giggling and I can't finish!
Who, you will note, are both "irrational" by Marky's definition. Which makes me wonder what value anyone could reasonably expect those "thoughtful responses" from irrational people to have...
Kevin, I don't mind the name calling directed at me, mind you. I will continue to make every effort to not attack people personally on here. Regardless of what anyone else does, I don't like it for my own personal reasons. I just think it's bad form and it weakens the argument. And, respectfully, I disagree regarding the baiting. When specific posts are directed towards me (and some even mentioning me by name), I don't see how that's my fault.
Now, on to some of what you said previously...
Alright, I read the "READ THIS." So what? It's cute but not very scientific.
China - the country you keep pointing to swooningly that is so enthusiastic about "green" technology!
I've never disputed that China will continue to be a big producer of CO2. My point was (and still is) that they are taking advantage of the wind turbine and solar energy market and we are not. Why? Because of people like you who, for whatever reason, place not being wrong in front of staying competitive and innovative in the international marketplace. Quite odd, when you consider that you are a capitalist.
T'ain't likely, McGee.
How do you KNOW this? Seriously, Kevin. You rag on me constantly for saying things are going to happen with no basis in logic or fact and then....you do the exact same thing! And why? Because you can't stand the fact that liberals might be right about something.
In the coming years, there will be more data that will support climate change. No doubt, your first reaction will be to dismiss it outright without examing the facts. You are more interested in disproving it than anything else. Virtually every one I know of your political slant says the exact same thing about climate change. Why? Same ol' reason. Here would be an example of this...
Remember how "The Surge" in Iraq was a failure?
It wasn't the troop increase that helped stabilize Iraq. It was a combination of a change in leadership (Gates and Patreaus) which then led to a change in tactics (The Woodward Strategy) coupled with payoffs and inclusion in the political process. Again, you dismiss the parts of the picture that don't fit with your bias.
My four points above stand and the comments made afterward prove them to be true. DJ called Al Gore a Jackass (#2) and you linked an article to how it's all a swindle (#4).
It wasn't the troop increase that helped stabilize Iraq. It was a combination of a change in leadership (Gates and Patreaus) which then led to a change in tactics (The Woodward Strategy) coupled with payoffs and inclusion in the political process. Again, you dismiss the parts of the picture that don't fit with your bias.
The FUCK I do. No sir, "the Surge" was all of that AND AN INCREASE IN TROOP STRENGTH. However, all the Left saw was the INCREASE IN TROOP STRENGTH. Remember "General Betray-Us"? It was all a package deal, and yet Biden proclaimed that it was a waste of time, as did many on the Left.
As to AGW, it IS a swindle, and that's ALL it is. It's an attempt by some to get rich, by others to push world governance, and by still others to hobble Western economies. Damned few actually think (including the IPCC reports) that anything we can do will affect whatever's going on significantly.
Considering I have yet to see any "point" from you that wasn't quickly traced back to some other source, I think this is another of your falsehoods.
that they are taking advantage of the wind turbine and solar energy market and we are not.
There *is* no "Wind turbine" and "Solar energy" market.
There's the power market. Usually measured in gallons or electrons. HOW YOU GET THERE DOESN'T MATTER. (Yes, there are the "boutique" operations where you promise to use or supply something. Trust me, That ain't what China's Doing.)
Why? Because of people like you who, for whatever reason, place not being wrong in front of staying competitive and innovative in the international marketplace. Quite odd, when you consider that you are a capitalist.
No, no, no, you lying sack who won't nut up, no.
First: I've already said that if you think so, you're free to make a company to do that. The fact that the US "isn't" doing that (which is bullshit, there are plenty of alternative energy companies, most funded directly by taxes far in excess of what they're worth.) doesn't prove a damn thing.
WE WON'T STOP YOU.
This is the most important piece you keep missing. DO IT. GO ON, DO IT (you'll learn a lot.) **WE** WON'T STOP YOU.
But the EPA...
But the local activists, but the local non-capitalists... THEY WILL DO THEIR BEST TO STOP YOU.
We're just telling you it's stupid and not cost-effective. That's it. We're not blocking you, suing you, or proposing new regulations or creative uses of current regulations.
Because we do believe in the free market. Hey, you can make power cheaper? Hot damn, I love lowering my bills.
Second: But what do you do? Consistanty propose ways to MAKE POWER **MORE** EXPENSIVE.
Wait, that's the exact ... opposite... of.. what.. would.. work.
Third: (mentioned above, but deserves it's own point) China *is* monolithic. They *can* (and do) shoot people who won't get "with the program". They're centrally led. It's easy to say "China is this, or China is that." (Though *trusting China's word for what the true goal or state is* is utterly imbecilic, and it's what we've made fun of you for many times - and why you're trying to ignore that we predicted this, you did not. (See also, the above hypothesis, and prediction being a requirement.)
We are not. We're a bunch of individuals. And if there was truly money to be made, you'd see people in that market. But your inability to grasp what "we" are and what "our direction" should be reveals much about yourself.
How do you KNOW this?
"Tain't likely" is a prediction. Your question is self-answered.
Seriously, Kevin. You rag on me constantly for saying things are going to happen with no basis in logic or fact and then....you do the exact same thing! And why? Because you can't stand the fact that liberals might be right about something.
He explained why. You ignored it. As you have all the other arguments you've lost. (Government programs getting smaller, definitions of words, amount of regulation in mortgage and financial markets........ among just a very few).
He explained it and then you said "But where's your explanation?" And then stuck to your emotionally loaded conclusion that had already been refuted.
Trust me. It's not being _right_ that irritates us about "Liberals".
You rag on me constantly for saying things are going to happen with no basis in logic or fact
You mean like
In the coming years, therewill bemore data that will support climate change.
That kind of "no basis in logic or fact"? A blanket prediction of the future with no more basis than the current crop of "evidence", all of which has been shown to be deliberately deceptive if not outright false?
T'ain't likely, McGee.
How do you KNOW this?
Which shows that if you did read the linked piece, you obviously didn't comprehend it. How does he KNOW this? Because he knows what you still do not, as illustrated in that "cute but not very scientific" piece you dismiss, that the presumption of runaway AGW violates fundamental principles of physics that have been proven since Aristotle's time.
Here's an interesting question for you Mark. In what respects, if any, does Al Gore differ from 'a fat cat capitalist gazillionaire growing steadily wealthier at the expense of the middle class', you know, the kind you are so fond of demonizing? Be specific, please.
Well, it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable by the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade.
the people who have pushed for political action based on AGW theory over the last decade have been proven to be untrustworthy.
...by the same brigade of people.
Gore and others (among them you) have spent years cheerleading a deliberate hoax based on nothing more than speculation and fearmongering. Gore, specifically, has been cheerleading that hoax (and profiting handsomely from it) for over a decade now. That is proven.
...by the same brigade of people. Sorry, GOF, but I don't trust the brigade. They ran our economy into the ground, fought a needless war which resulted in the people that attacked us on 9-11 getting a toe hold in a country with nuclear weapons, and then, being the gutless turds they are, blamed it all on the Democrats. I don't mind dissenting opinions on climate change but if they come via Fox News, American Thinker, or Townhall, they can pound salt up their lying asses because I know all too well what their agenda is and what they want.
And wasn't Al Gore quite wealthy before all of this started? And..um...are you now saying that making money is a bad thing after all the grief I get for bitching about profiteering? VERY confused, GOF.
What color is the sky on your world?
The color of the sky in my world tells me that the data gathered thus far shows that it might be a valid theory. Does that mean that it is for certain? No. I'd like to see some more data. Sadly, any real data that does come out will be immediately dismissed and politicized so we never will really know, will we? Meanwhile, a very large group of Chinese people are laughing at us and wonder why we have people who live in our country who place hubris before innovation.
What do you claim is ironic about the second statement?
The fact that Kevin laughs at me for claiming I am the rational one and then goes on to intimate that climate change is a plot to surrender our sovereignty to a global government. Does anyone think the latter is rational?
(Beating my head against the wall because it feels so good when I stop . . .)
The fact that Kevin laughs at me for claiming I am the rational one and then goes on to intimate that climate change is a plot to surrender our sovereignty to a global government.
Once again, no, Markadelphia. It's merely the latest in a long line of "The SKY IS FALLING!" predictions glommed onto by people who believe that Man Can Be Made Perfect in their never-ending attempt to drag us there, kicking and screaming if necessary.
Personally, I think "Peak Oil" has a better case, but I'm still not willing to give up my sovereignty so that some technocrats can control everyone's energy consumption to save us from ourselves.
Well, it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable by the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade.
You *are* counting these strawmen towards your carbon taxes, right?
Err, no. Mark, you're trying to run away from corner you've painted yourself into.
Now you're back to arguing science.
With Scientists. Who have your vaunted academic credentials. The ones you accuse us of not respecting. But I've got a hard science degree. Do you? Polymer Chemistry. BS. I've published research papers. My undergrad Senior Research Project not only got an "A", but it was used the next year by 2 masters students as their first step, as they expanded on what I'd done (and proven) into practical aspects. (Effects of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide on Nylon and Polyester if you want to wave sizes around.)
You're boned. Fucked. Screwed worse than a waitress between Kennedy and Dodd. And you know it.
But you can't admit your error. You can't admit that your worldview is emotionally based with no facts behind it.
So you spin and weave and throw accusations our way.
Basically, you're trying to yell RAAAAAAACIST! at us, but you can't. You can't even understand when we have disagreements amongst the group here, what we've disagreed *about*.
But we KNOW science. If you'll recall, we were PREDICTING what the "Global Warming" "Scientists" had done.
And we were right.
Our hypothesis was proven correct. We didn't know for certain they were fudging the numbers, but we could look at their conclusions, do some math on our own and say "Wait, that's not right." The "ClimateGate" emails were CONFIRMATION.
We knew it before that. We just hadn't proven it. Sometimes, especially when you have people hiding information, you can't.
Which is why science REQUIRES THE INFORMATION YOU'RE WORKING ON TO BE RELEASED FOR PEOPLE TO CHECK IT.
it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable
By those of us who have the skills, the qualifications, the past history of being able to deem acceptable or not for SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.
"The fact that Kevin laughs at me for claiming I am the rational one and then goes on to intimate that climate change is a plot to surrender our sovereignty to a global government. Does anyone think the latter is rational?"
Apparently you weren't paying attention to the goings on in Copenhagen. Or you simply ignored what you didn't like, again…
Does this mean you're finally willing to take back your "just like Al Qaeda" slander?
Certainly. When you
-recognize that homosexuals should have equal rights as the rest of our population, can teach our children, and are not "sinners who will burn before Allah.." Oops...sorry...God ;)
-cease to condone torture as an effective method of intelligence gathering and/or defense
-state that an athiest president would be just as effective as a Christian one
-leave behind xenophobia and overly psychotic, nationalistic chest thumping
-stand against the book of Genesis being taught in public schools as an explanation of how the world was created
-cease viewing women as cattle
-stop thinking that contraceptives should be banned and/or is abortion
-no longer think that the ONLY way to get to heaven is through your faith and your faith alone
-do not blindly believe that violence and destruction is the ONLY way to deal with your enemy
-can admit fault
then I will have no problem retracting my statement and issuing a full apology.
Does this mean you're finally willing to take back your "just like Al Qaeda" slander?
Certainly.
Then you didn't take it back. So it wasn't "Certainly", it was "no".
Guess we can add "Certainly" to the lists of "words Mark doesn't know". (Also known as the "Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language")
This statement of Marxadopia is utterly hilarious:
"Well, it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable by the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade."
Now, teacher boy, go read your own comment above. You took issue with me, saying:
"RATF-LMAO!!!! With your bias, DJ? It's will NEVER HAPPEN."
when I agreed with you, a self-admitted liberal, that, to quote you:
"I'm not sure if it is man made or not. It's a theory backed up by some evidence at this point. I'm not willing to make any judgment until more data is gathered and who knows how much the theory could alter at that point or if an answer will even present itself. That is, after all, the way of science."
taking exception only that I claim to have seen no hard evidence of it, whereas you claim there is "some evidence".
Oh, the irony ...
Little boy, you are disputing yourself, and you are arguing with yourself. How does your head not explode?
With you, it's always about the quick retort, ain't it? With you, it's never about actually understanding what someone else says, is it? It's never about thinking through the consequences of your own words, is it?
"DJ called Al Gore a Jackass ..."
I called YOU a jackass, too. I stated (emphasis added):
"Al Gore is a jackass, just as you are a jackass."
followed by:
"Look the word up."
Here; I'll do it for you. It takes four mouse clicks: two to select it, one to bring up a context-senstive menu, and one to select "Search The Free Dictionary for "jackass". You should try looking up the definitions of words; it'll open up a whole new world for you.
jackass
n.
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) a male donkey
2. a stupid person; fool
Well, the first definition is not appropriate, but the second one is a perfect fit for you. I suggest you try remembering that, here in Kevin's parlor, many people have called you stupid many times, and many people have called you a fool many times. Are you just now taking exception to it?
Exactly. "Global Warming Skeptics" say it, therefore it's automatically wrong. It doesn't even matter if people admit they've cooked their data, they were accused of it by conservatives therefore they didn't really. Why am I not surprised by this?
...if they come via Fox News, American Thinker, or Townhall, they can pound salt up their lying asses because I know all too well what their agenda is and what they want.
But of course if Daily Kos posts something you agree with, everyone should ignore the source and accept it as truth, because everyone knows Daily Kos doesn't have any agenda.
No, not the global warming skeptics. I trust the real ones. The guys I don't trust are the ones trotted out by Glenn Beck to go chop down a tree on Earth Day or something.
Other than the poll, I've never read the Daily Kos although I hear that Marcos has ripped off my idea for his new book....American Taliban >:o And no, it isn't the John Walker Lindh story.
Bullshit. You've just lumped the London Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian together with the "ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade." If you had bothered to follow the links to the sources you would have known that. But then, if you bothered to follow the sourcing of the IPCC report itself you'd be able to see how much it accepts as fact non-peer-reviewed pieces by professional activists, freelance journalists and students. It's right there in the bibliographies if you bother to look. Don't take my word for it, go look it up, although the Times Online site seems a little flaky today.
So... since you have loudly and publicly proclaimed the Times of London, and the freaking Guardian for cryin out loud, to be right-wing smear sites with no possible connection to the truth, I'll take it as given that you'll only concede what a deliberate hoax is all is right after Keith Olbermann does.
Ya know, the notion that you are paid to teach gets a little creepier every time I talk to you.
Tell ya what, Mark. You want to try to get people on board with the "science" behind AGW, and convince us it's real? Fine. Here's a project for you that I think will see real results for you here, if you can pull it off. The man is one of the most imminent scientists of the 20th century and is an Obama supporter, so it should be an easy gig, right?
Wanna convince me that AGW is something other than bullshit? Convince Freeman Dyson.
In those stories from Townhall and Hot Air and the like. You can claim all you want that "the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade" are the only ones who consider the story to be truthful, but even a cursory scan of the links such articles routinely provide will show you that they didn't break the story, nor are they continuing to develop it... they're only following the developments. The people who broke the story and are developing it are all writers for the London Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian, so far as I can tell.
And if you looked at the original IPCC report and did google searches on the authors of the various things they consider "evidence", you wouldn't even have to take their word for it, since they are obviously "right wing smear sites", having dared to report actual news. You know, unlike the New York Times who deliberately spiked a story for fear it would affect Obama's chances of election, or MS-NBC who carefully left the face and hands of an armed black man at a tea party rally out of the frame while they used him as background for a story about "armed white racists at tea parties", or CBS who deliberately chose to run a forgery as if it were fact to embarrass Bush. Ya know, news? I realize you may be unfamiliar with the concept, just as you are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of checking sources.
So.... it's not a case of "the right wingers made it up", unless you actually count the Times, Telegraph and Guardian among that number. It's that the places you go to for "news" have declined to report it.
Not one of those points was correct. NOT. A. SINGLE. ONE!
About half of them were as wrong as calling black, white, or calling true, false (in a boolean sense). Zero basis in reality. Zip. Nada. None. Zilch. Complete, 100% fabrications. Castles in the air. Out and out demonization.
Some bear a passing resemblance to my convictions, but they tend to be both strawman (i.e., distorted) versions of my convications, and based upon assumptions that simply aren't true.
And one simply violates basic logic—as in Logic 101; logic every child inherently recognizes it almost as soon as they can talk. It's called the Law of Non-Contradiction. I know you've heard of it, because I've pointed it out to you before.
You expect any of us to take you seriously when you cannot even understand logic that any 5 year old understands?!? ("Is too! Is not! Is too! Is not!")
I can explain why every single point that YOU claim I think is wrong. But I'm still convinced that it would be a total waste of time. And I am not willing to waste it.
So why don't you help me with point 10? ("can admit fault") Convince me that I'm wrong about you. Convince me that it would not be a waste of time to explain these things to you. Convince me that you would A) accept that my statements about my convictions are what I actually believe (none of this "well you say X but I know you mean Y" crap), and B) you would both recognize that I actually wrote something and that you would actually understand it. Every time you post crap like this, it just adds more proof that your mind is made up, and even a face to face meeting with God himself would be unlikely to change your mind.
While we're doing comparisons, let's look at statements from someone you might have heard of:
"…blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming…"
"…blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."
"The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink," he said. "World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism."
"…noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said "are the true criminals against the global climate" and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving "tens of millions into poverty and unemployment."
"…also called for the "punishing and holding to account" of corporation chiefs…"
"Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality," he said … adding: "All of the industrialised countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility."
"Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia."
"The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent,"
Tell you what, Ed. I'm feeling charitable today. I will address each of bin Laden's points and demonstrate that I honestly don't bear any resemblance to them.
"…blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming…"
The jury is still out on this one as far as I'm concerned. It's likely but not 100 percent fact and probably never will be. We need more research, more data, and less politicizing of this issue. So he's wrong about that.
"…blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."
Whether global warming is responsible for all of this, again, remains to be seen. The US, along with other nations, does bear a responsibility for political destabilization in certain regions that leads to hunger. Unlike Sarah Palin's inability to admit fault or take responsibility for US actions, our current leadership, for the most part, recognizes that our nation has made mistakes and will probably make more. Of course, heaping on the US is just as much bullshit as Palin's warped view of the world. Many of the nations we try to help have leaders who are little more than mafioso--thugs--criminals who steal much of the aid we send and use it to solidfy their power. Just because they aren't white doesn't mean they are magically pure. I would point to the various leaders in places like Sudan and Somalia as evidence of this fact.
"The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink," he said. "World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism."
Well, I love capitalism. And we need to monitor government interference in the marketplace to foster innovation. At the same time, however, we need to keep an eye towards social cohesion. Corporations like Blackwater and Wal Mart are rife with criminals. The trick is to have reasonable oversight that leads to innovation and maintains social cohesion. Of course, bin Laden wants neither of these as he exists only to destroy and enslave. In fact, this is a more accurate description of himself.
"…noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol..."
This makes no sense when you consider the number of jobs that could be created with green tech. Sounding pretty desperate here...
"…also called for the "punishing and holding to account" of corporation chiefs…"
Well, who is he talking about? If people broke the law, they should be punished. Where is his list of names?
"Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality," he said … adding: "All of the industrialised countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility."
"The effects of global warming..."
Again, we need more data and research. At the same time, we need to stay competitive with the Chinese regarding wind turbines and solar energy. Whether it's real or not, is immaterial. There's money to be made, son!
"Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia."
This is a blanket statement that could apply to any leader of any country. I don't think that President Obama is akin to Tony Soprano, do you? We do makes mistakes and cause problems in the world. In our history, we have made some awful ones. At the same time, however...
"The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."
--President Barack Obama December 10, 2009
That all being said...I have to say...again...who cares what bin Laden thinks? He's a psychotic mass murderer. Are you that ideologically weak that his words mean anything to you?
I've done my bit. Go ahead and address my points above regarding the commonality of the base and...the base. Prove Moulitsas wrong when he says "progressives hate radical Jihadists for the same reason they hate conservatives--intolerance, militarism, disrespect for democracy, and a desire to impose their regressive mores on the rest of society."
You still don't get it, do you? You keep proving that you refuse to even acknowledge what we write. Therefore, it's a waste of time to try. For example, here you did three things:
- Ignored my refusal to argue until you prove that it's not a waste of time.
- Used "social cohesion" again without defining it, despite NUMEROUS requests that you do so.
- Spent a huge amount of time trying to explain away claims that are far more similar to YOUR arguments than MINE, totally missing the point about similarities to Al Qaeda. (Did you get whiplash from having to dodge so hard to miss that point?)
Convince me that arguing with you is not a waste of time.
"Used "social cohesion" again without defining it, despite NUMEROUS requests that you do so."
I have, Ed, several times. Do you need the link for the Manzi article again? Have you even read it? Juris sent it to me and it really changed my outlook on what is needed for our country. After you've read it, when can discuss social cohesion.
As far as my JLAQ theory, disprove me. I addressed your list. You haven't addressed mine.
Bull. Shit. I've continued to follow those threads, and not once have you said anything like what you just wrote here. In fact, you have done nothing at all to define "social cohesion", even though you continued to use that phrase.
"Do you need the link for the Manzi article again?"
Yes
"You haven't addressed mine."
No I haven't. Do you remember why? Your latest post in the education thread provided yet more E V I D E N C E about why I shouldn't waste the time.
If it were a theory, it could be. Since it's not (you're just misusing a word again), it can't be. Which is why you're putting the trappings of science on top of your aphasiac thoughts. You're cargo-culting, trying for referred creditability.
Mark is truly the only idiot I've seen here will wander in, drop a steamy turd of an idea down, and then demand that everyone spend their time disproving it, rather than, y'know, trying to prove it, give evidence for it, or do something in the way of trying to assert that it is something other than the turd it is.
Here's an idea, Mark - quit trying to link in sources you don't understand (I've lost count of how many times you've posted something that completely contradicts the point you're trying to make). Read information, internalize it, think about it, and then try presenting the idea yourself.
I'm not surprised you're horrifically concerned with citations and the possible bias of the source - you can't be bothered to understand information, so you just go by plurality of data (not bothering to read it, of course).
Liar boy, you are, yet again, coughing up yet another instance of your Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response, in which you simply lay on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declare, "I answered your question." Once again, you'll find your standard responses catalogued at
The question that Ed has posed to you is to define the term "social cohesion".
The link you provided above is to an article in which we find statements such as ...
"... disruption that could seriously undermine America's social cohesion — which is not only essential to a decent and just society, ..."
"... which harms both our ability to compete and our capacity for social cohesion."
"This resistance movement — which in a sense came to power with the Nixon administration — was clearly concerned with questions of social cohesion ..."
"... the worry that economic dynamism was harmful to social cohesion."
"So economic inequality is likely to cause problems with social cohesion ..."
"... we will hollow out the middle class — threatening social cohesion, ..."
"... or to ignore the necessity of social cohesion ..."
"Balancing economic innovation and social cohesion ..."
Count 'em, teacher boy. This article uses the term "social cohesion" eight times, but NOWHERE does the article DEFINE it.
Ed has asked you several times to define the term "social cohesion". You have not done so. All you have done is lie by stating that you have done so, and you point to this article.
Now, lest you forget your own past, I suggest you go open the comments to the following post, search therein for the word "liar", and refresh yourself as to just what a lying little boy you are:
Thanks, DJ. Marxy recently had a post on his blog where he showed that he had completely forgotten all the facts contrary to his ideology about the economic collapse. The comments to the post you linked is one of those places where Marxy had been exposed to a complete education, complete with E V I D E N C E, but as usual, it could have been written in Swahili as far as Marxy was concerned.
Hey, check it out! I found a definition of "social cohesion" in Part II of the education article that Kevin linked to (and which Marxy hates). However, it doesn't sound like Markaphasia's working definition:
"Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci posited that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion, as they provide the social cohesion necessary to a healthy functional society. Transform the principles that these embody and you can destroy the society they have shaped."
Given Marxy's historical (hysterical??) position on many of these areas, this can't be the definition he has in mind.
I've printed out the article so I can read it at my leisure.
But at first blush, it appears that DJ is right. I did a search in the article for "social cohesion" and scanned through the context where it was used every time (including full paragraphs on either side of that phrase). I did not see any place where it's defined.
Furthermore, you have often given words and phrases your own private meanings. So that means that even if Manzi did define it one way, that does not necessarily mean that you hold the same definition.
Therefore, to make sure we're on the same page, YOU should define what "social cohesion" means TO YOU.
I addressed your list. You haven't addressed mine.
I thought you'd never ask.
-recognize that homosexuals should have equal rights as the rest of our population, can teach our children, and are not "sinners who will burn before Allah.." Oops...sorry...God
Aw hell, where does one begin? Quite aside from the fact that this standard defines about a third of "the conservative base", including Darth Cheney(tm) himself, as less "just like Al-Qaeda" than the President you have a man-crush on...
Let's see, the semantic content of that statement is pretty low, but let's see what we can get.
"Equal rights..." See above.
"Can teach our children..." I'm okay with them teaching your children, or for that matter mine. But there are two separate points buried in here. One is your apparent contention that parents should be required to respect your prejudices, but teachers should not be required to respect those of parents. The other is your apparent contention that straight teachers should be required to be effectively asexual per the long standing cultural convention known as"professionalism",but that gay teachers should not be bound by such restrictions.
-cease to condone torture as an effective method of intelligence gathering and/or defense
Semantic content: ZERO. "Torture" is a legal definition. At the time those interrogations were done, they were legally defined as not being torture. Just because people you approve of changed that definition later does not change the conditions that obtained when those actions were taken.
In short, you're saying "the base" is "just like Al-Qaeda" because we don't think you can turn back time and make things unhappen.
-state that an athiest president would be just as effective as a Christian one
Why? Based on what? A fair percentage of the people you have accused and insulted with this slander are themselves atheist or agnostic, including both me and our host. This is just another way of saying "the science is settled" or "I won." It's a declaration that even considering the point to be debatable renders one "just like Al-Qaeda." In short, it's a declaration in favor of tyranny, is it not?
-leave behind xenophobia and overly psychotic, nationalistic chest thumping
Semantic content: ZERO. If I had to pick out an example of "xenophobia and overly psychotic chest thumping" from Kevin's archives, I'd be hard put to find a better candidate than this very gem I am currently picking apart.
-stand against the book of Genesis being taught in public schools as an explanation of how the world was created
Again, why? I'll grant you that I wouldn't put it in the "hard sciences", but that's not what you're suggesting. You're basically saying that either Comparative Religion should never be taught in any school, or if it is it should exclude Judeo-Christian creation theory. Either that or you're trying to imply that a Christian (like Copernicus or Newton) is simply not capable of objective science and their views should be banned.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think is so terrible about letting presumably intelligent students, who you assure me are taught critical thinking and analysis skills, judge for themselves whether such ideas hold water or not? Or am I assuming too much by thinking you consider them intelligent and capable of thinking things through?
Semantic content: ZERO. Of course being from Texas I naturally have a pinup of a sweet lookin heifer on my wall at all times. This month's brangus looks yummy indeed.
Are you both disgusted and amused yet? Rest assured, it looks just as offensive and idiotic coming out of your mouth as it does mine.
-stop thinking that contraceptives should be banned and/or is abortion
In light of the actual content of the now infamous "Tim Tebow ads" and the left's quite predictable and in fact predicted reaction before they even saw it... do you really want to go there?
-no longer think that the ONLY way to get to heaven is through your faith and your faith alone
Okay waitaminit.... I coulda sworn you yourself claimed to be a Christian. Not being one myself I may of course be in error, but... isn't this a basic tenet of Christianity, pretty much regardless of which particular sect you belong to? You mean... you don't believe this, and yet still consider yourself a Christian? Does that work? How?
Or are you saying that yes, you do in fact believe that and that therefore you are "just like Al-Qaeda"?
It's official. I'm freaking confused.
-do not blindly believe that violence and destruction is the ONLY way to deal with your enemy
Semantic content: ZERO. Among other reasons, "blindly" renders the entire thing void of meaning, as does "only". I have no doubt whatever that is intentional.
-can admit fault
Semantic content: ZERO. It's probably a rare commenter here that you couldn't do an archive search and find an admission of fault in some manner, but that's obviously not satisfactory so another, more restricted meaning is implied. This other meaning is, per usual practice, not defined.
then I will have no problem retracting my statement and issuing a full apology.
Conclusion: You will retract your statement when we agree with whatever your personal prejudices are, and not before. Unless we are noticeably to the left of Barack Obama himself, we are all "just like Al-Qaeda."
'Nuff said. As so often happens, your comments say more about you than they do about the person you're speaking to or even the subject you are talking about. Imagine my surprise.
"-can admit fault
Semantic content: ZERO. It's probably a rare commenter here that you couldn't do an archive search and find an admission of fault in some manner, but that's obviously not satisfactory so another, more restricted meaning is implied. This other meaning is, per usual practice, not defined. "
Better than that - ask Mark if he can find even one person he's arguing against here who has not admitted fault.
Hell, one need only search Beck to see us all doing various forms of backpeddling.
Marxaphasia's list was directed specifically at me. Ironically enough, he posted this claim just days after I did exactly that on his own freakin' blog!
Ed:"I also noticed that you "somehow forgot" to include a link to my comments so that people couldn't tell that you ripped some of my statements out of context."
Marxy:"I included a link to the comment thread in the main post, Ed. The words "The Smallest Minority" were linked to go directly to the discussion."
Ed:"Ohh. I missed that. My apologies. I withdraw the part about you deliberately skipping the link, though the part about your selective quoting is still true."
Easy, there, Grumpy. Remember, much of what he says is just a "retort of the moment", and he admits that he seldom ever proofreads anything he writes here. So, there's no need for confusion, as gibberish is, by definition, confusing. Here, I'll show you:
Sack boy, you continue to sink to ever lower depths of hypocrisy. The defining characteristic of your pathological personality is that you CANNOT admit serious error.
10 Hours Ago:"…blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming…"
The jury is still out on this one as far as I'm concerned. It's likely but not 100 percent fact and probably never will be. We need more research, more data, and less politicizing of this issue. So he's wrong about that.
2 Hours Ago:GOF, the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid.
So it only took you about 8 hours to come back around to the position (again) that AGW is almost certainly true, just like Bin Laden?
Sure looks DJ is right about the "response of the moment".
Well, that's only if you take the IPCC report at face value. My point in mentioning it was that even the AGW supporters say that their theory is possibly wrong...just as I could be about it being valid or not being valid.
Which brings to a very large difference between myself and most of you...I don't set my mind in granite and let it sit there forever until the end of all time. I know it's tough to grasp the grays of life but that's just how the world is, folks. Keep trying to stick a square peg in a round hole and you'll spend most of your life being quite frustrated.
GOF, great response. I mean it...honestly. Regarding yourself, I retract my statement and offer my sincerest apologies. You are nothing like Al Qaeda. In fact, I think you may have a future writing comedy. I see a big career ahead of you if you so desire. I am going to be laughing about this one
Of course being from Texas I naturally have a pinup of a sweet lookin heifer on my wall at all times. This month's brangus looks yummy indeed.
My point in mentioning it was that even the AGW supporters say that their theory is possibly wrong...just as I could be about it being valid or not being valid.
Your point was to prove you don't understand science, despite multiple explanations. This is due to your deliberate obtuseness.
Nor does the IPCC say what you say it says. You're projecting, again. You, like you did with Obama, telling us what you WANT it to say.
I guess you knew what "questions to ask" it.
Which brings to a very large difference between myself and most of you...I don't set my mind in granite and let it sit there forever until the end of all time. I know it's tough to grasp the grays of life but that's just how the world is, folks.
Not only do you stick your mind in granite, you do so without any regard to where you're setting it, and then refuse to admit that your position is not what you thought it was.
Thus the myriad errors and continual exhibition of your dysfunctional thought process. Thus the inability to use words correctly, making up your own definitions as they suit you, and using them interchangeably - and without warning of the context change - in order to bolster your "intellectual" arguments. Which are invariably, cuts and pastes from someone else.
The discussion here that would have done you the most good - you avoided.
Marxy posted this link to a Reason article over on the education thread. It seems that's where he got his numbers from:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Summary for Policymakers of its 4th Scientific Assessment of Climate Change (4AR) in Paris earlier today. (The whole report will be published in May.) The Summary declares that "warming in the climate system is unequivocal" and that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." In the lexicon of the Summary's authors, very likely means that they believe that there is more than a 90 percent chance that the last half century of warming is humanity's fault."
I noticed a couple of things about this quote:
1) It's from 3 full years ago, which means it doesn't take into account any of the more recent Climategate revelations, yet Marxy's claims have almost a 1 to 1 correspondence to this paragraph. That shows his inability to consolidate new data.
2) The 90% figure is for "anthropogenic causes" while that there is warming is "unequivocal". Yet we now have an admission from the head of the organization that managed the data that warming ceased around 1998, 9 years before this article. AND that what warming did occur "in the last half century" was all due to natural causes.
So despite those problem we have Marxy still claiming that AGW is "90% certain" compared to Bin Laden's "dogmatically certain", and contrasted with our conclusion (based on FAR more recent evidence) that we're roughly 95% certain AGW is a hoax. So who's closer to AQ again?
BTW, I used to accept that warming was still happening (but not caused by humans) up until about a year ago. That's when I started finding out that there was evidence that warming had stopped back in '98. (Specifically, the discovery that Hanson's computer program had a bug that made temperatures from 2000 and on higher than they actually were was a key bit of evidence.) That's called looking at the evidence and adjusting a belief to include the new information.
So the 90% *isn't* from the IPCC (even when they're making stuff up, they know how to better than that), but it's a description from somewhere he cribbed, without noting that too well.
Of course being from Texas I naturally have a pinup of a sweet lookin heifer on my wall at all times. This month's brangus looks yummy indeed.
for a long time. Muchos Gracias....
You are very welcome. Not only did I enjoy writing it, but this thread needed a little lightening up. However, that avoids the nuts and bolts of my response.
You posted ten points you considered the conditions under which you'd retract your slander. Five of those ten had a semantic content ofZERO, they had no meaning whatsoever. Of the remaining five:
The "gay rights" point is nothing more than "if you disagree with my personal prejudices, you are just like Al-Qaeda... unless you're Obama cos I have a man-crush on him, or unless you're Darth Cheney cos you're just like Al-Qaeda regardless of what you do or say."
The atheist President point is nothing more than "wanting to debate the pointat all makes you just like Al-Qaeda", in short it's yet another "if you disagree with my prejudices..."
The creationism point is stating that students should not be allowed to judge the truth or falsehood of religious doctrine themselves, and that if you think they should you are just like Al-Qaeda. Presumably that means they should just take your wod for it, in other words, they must agree with your prejudices... again.
The point about needing to be Christian to get to heaven, I'm still waiting for an answer from you on.
The point about an irrational response to abortion/contraception... I will happily go there with you if ya want, but you'll get yer ass handed to you.
So... five statements with no meaning whatsoever, two demands that everyone comply with your personal prejudices, a statement against actual teaching and in favor of indoctrination instead (once again, demanding agreement with your prejudices), a statement that seems to be at odds with your own beliefs which I'm still waiting for you to clarify, and a statement so at odds with reality that you dare not expand on it. None left over.
And you think I'm the only person here you should apologize to?
If you think conservatives "treat women like cattle", I have to wonder where you think little conservatives come from... unless you are suggesting that we treat women and cattle pretty much the same, in which case, well... eeeww.
GOF, a long day and you made crack up again...thanks...
To your points,
but that gay teachers should not be bound by such restrictions.
No, I think that everyone should leave their sex life at home regardless of whom they sleep with (man, woman or cattle...sorry couldn't resist). Your comments here generall reflect my views. However, they do not reflect the views of Sarah and Ed, for example, who think that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry nor teach our children. This is the same belief held by Al Qaeda.
Semantic content: ZERO. "Torture" is a legal definition....
I'm not the one giving torture meaning here, GOF. That would be someone like Dick Cheney was has said several times that EITs are necessary to the defense of our country. This view has been echoed by several on here. In fact, many have said that President Obama has weakened our country by expressly forbidden what IS clearly torture as defined by actual interrorgators and not speech writers. I think you will agree that Al Qaeda uses these same techniques on our soldiers hence the obvious commonality.
Why? Based on what?
Like Al Qaeda, the base would like to see a wholly run Christian society similar to Sharia Law. I know that's not you nor Kevin but it is the people your support. There is no way in heck that a man or woman could win the presidency and NOT believe in the Christian God...just as you won't see a Jewish person rallying potential Al Qaeda members.
If I had to pick out an example of "xenophobia and overly psychotic chest thumping"
Well, that is one question that I have pondered quite a bit: am I intolerant of intolerance? That's a tough one. As far as an example goes, pick any of the entries (there are dozens) in which Kevin et al have stated that the US has nothing to apologize for in regards to the Muslim world. I recall a debate regarding Iran in which the coup we helped orchestrate in the 1950s was necessary for our national security. Our entire relationship with Iran has evolved from our horrible mistake and yet no one here is willing to admit fault. They're Muslim---fuck 'em! Al Qaeda has issued similar communiques which reflect a pathological hatred of the West as well as a fervent belief that they are always right.
You're basically saying that either Comparative Religion should never be taught in any school,
As philosophy, absolutely yes. As science, no. But that (JLAQ) is what they want, GOF. They view evolution as heretical and any explanation that doesn't involved God is the work of the devil. Again, we are in agreement on this point. I do think that students are very intelligent and can think things through on their own. But I think you will agree that presenting it in physics or biology is wrong. Remember, many on the right don't want scientific theory taught at all. That's why they home school! THEY are the ones that don't want their kids exposed to the heresy and think that they shouldn't judge for themselves...JLAQ.
Are you both disgusted and amused yet? Tim Tebow etc...
I put up the cattle reference because it is quite clear that most on the right think that abortion is murder. Fair enough. That's their belief. But by stating that they want the government, through a religious belief, to tell a woman what to do with her body, they become JLAQ. Not as bad, mind you, but their belief still puts women in a category of being controlled. How do they actually know for certain it's life? They really don't. I know I don't. It's above my pay grade ;) .
This brings up another way they are JLAQ...many on the right apparently know how God thinks and feels. They have taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment....something the Bible expressly forbids...and yet they do it anyway.They would love it if they could run our sex lives. Doesn't AQ think contraception is against the will of God? Sitting in judgment as well....
and yet still consider yourself a Christian? Does that work? How?
I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I believe that it is only through him that I can get to heaven. If someone else believes something different, it's not for me to judge. That's God's job. Perhaps God knows something I don't...he/she is all powerful and knowing and a pathetic human such as myself can't be expected to understand how his/her perfect mind works? Now if I was part of either base, I would understand this :*
Semantic content: ZERO. Among other reasons, "blindly" renders...
Both AQ and the Dick Cheneys and Sarah Palins of the world believe that military action--violence--is the only way to defeat your enemy. Both sides use "crusade" and "holy war" language in their propanganda.
This other meaning is, per usual practice, not defined.
This goes back to the Iran coup discussion as well as the inability to see US foreign policy (esp in the Islamic world) as anything other than pure. Iraq is another example of this. It was a huge mistake especially from a strategic standpoint. We have an Al Qaeda base in an unstable country that has nuclear weapons. Isn't that what Bush was trying to stop? Instead of admitting fault, Iraq has been touted as a success even when in the face of a myriad of facts, it wasn't.
And you think I'm the only person here you should apologize to?
I would add juris and mastiff into your category as well although I think I did single them out as being excluded from my JLAQ characterization. If I didn't, I offer my full apologies to both of you and retract my statement.
Something else...in the case of our illustrious host, I will stipulate that he does not fit 6 of the 10 commonalities...so a D- for him 8-)
Dick Cheneys and Sarah Palins of the world believe that military action--violence--is the only way to defeat your enemy. Both sides use "crusade" and "holy war" language
Ah, back to "asking yourself the right question" to know what people's minds are.
Care to quote something like that from Cheney or Palin?
It was a huge mistake especially from a strategic standpoint.
No, it wasn't, and you've been slapped with that enough here to know better than to keep trotting it out.
From a strategic standpoint, it was a requirement.
Wait.
What do you think "Strategic" means?
(Or "standpoint"?) ("Mistake"?)
However, they do not reflect the views of Sarah and Ed, for example, who think that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry nor teach our children.
In short, you demand that others respect your prejudices (mine too, in fairness), but flatly refuse to respect theirs. Further, you insist that this demand of respect on one side and refusal of it on the other be a matter of law.
Much the way Sharia Law treats Christians and Jews, no?
I'm not the one giving torture meaning here, GOF. That would be someone like Dick Cheney...
Um, no, it wouldn't. That would be some people like the Department of Justice. I'd think a history teacher would be able to realize that, with a few rare and obvious aberrations, every war has contained instances of what was defined as "torture" during that war that had been defined as "normal interrogation practices" in the most recent preceding war by that same government. That trend can be followed all the way back to the Romans easily. The same in China. It's not so common in Africa and the Middle East, but that's because they're largely still using practices a professional torturer from a thousand years ago would recognize.
...what IS clearly torture as defined by actual interrorgators...
Either you're denying that there is such a thing as an interrogator or lawyer who does not consider it torture, or you're just deciding that opinions you disagree with are automatically invalid and false.
In short, you are claiming that any opinion that disagrees with your own makes one "just like Al-Qaeda."
Like Al Qaeda, the base would like to see a wholly run Christian society similar to Sharia Law.
And to your certain knowledge this is less common than the percentage of Democrat party members who have a positive image of socialism or communism. Many Democrat lawmakers are openly and proudly praising and espousing socialist and/or communist leaders and principles, and openly and proudly working to increase the degree of socialist philosophy embodied in US law. Yet if I said, "The Democrat base would like to see a wholly run communist society similar to Stalinism", you'd dismiss me as a lunatic, wouldn't you?
Why is that?
Al Qaeda has issued similar communiques which reflect a pathological hatred of the West as well as a fervent belief that they are always right.
As have you. And your point is...?
Remember, many on the right don't want scientific theory taught at all. That's why they home school!
Is it? There's no chance that they merely dislike the idea of their child being given a "fisting kit" by Obama's safe schools czar? This probably wouldn't be an issue if education wasn't funded by taxes, in other words by force. As it is, many Christians are required by law to pay for their children to be taught that everything their parents believe is wrong, stupid, and/or evil. In order to get an education for their children that they actually want, they have to pay extra. But regardless, they MUST pay for the "education" that declares them evil. Don't think so? Think for a moment about how the left automatically reacts to any Christian symbolism in any public building anywhere in the US.
Once again, you demand that others respect your philosophical prejudices, but flatly refuse to respect theirs. And you further demand that they be required, at gunpoint if necessary, to financially support yours.
But by stating that they want the government, through a religious belief, to tell a woman what to do with her body, they become JLAQ.
All you're doing here is making a blanket statement that the "abortion is murder" belief is solely religious and has no foundation in fact whatsoever. In short, you are once again declaring that even considering the point debatable makes you "just like Al-Qaeda."
How do they actually know for certain it's life? They really don't. I know I don't. It's above my pay grade.
Okay, so they don't. How do abortion doctors "know" it isn't a human life? They don't. And yet to "sit in judgment....something the Bible expressly forbids" and declare that "it's okay to kill them by the millions, because they might not be human" is enlightened and "pro-choice", in spite of the fact that Tim Tebow thanking his mother for her choice provoked national outrage on the left, while deciding that "it's not okay to kill them, even one or two, because they might be human" is "just like Al-Qaeda."
How do you tie yourself in knots like that without snapping your own spine?
I believe that it is only through him that I can get to heaven.
And that differs from
-no longer think that the ONLY way to get to heaven is through your faith and your faith alone
HOW, exactly?
Both sides use "crusade" and "holy war" language in their propanganda.
You can find plenty of leftists espousing violence as well. The only real difference I see is that the right tends to espouse violence against foreign enemies, while the left espouses violence against domestic ones.
And your point is?
This goes back to the Iran coup discussion...
And of course you end with another "they're just like Al-Qaeda because their opinions disagree with mine." It's more than a little scary that a teacher can't conceive of rational people looking at the same set of data, rationally reaching incompatible conclusions, and neither of them being evil.
"and yet still consider yourself a Christian? Does that work? How?"
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I believe that it is only through him that I can get to heaven. If someone else believes something different, it's not for me to judge. That's God's job."
"I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."
Even though he's obviously not a Christian, at least Hitchens is clear on what the definition of a Christian actually is.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/all-news-that-fits-agenda.html (87 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
But the philosophy cannot be wrong!
Honestly, this is a more appropriate description of your thinking on climate change, Kevin, as well as others here. I think it's interesting that every time any discussion of climate change comes up, Al Gore is personally attacked. It's as if it's more important to prove Gore wrong than find out what is actually going on. Actually, it's more important to prove any Democrat or progressive wrong than do something to benefit this country. And, if a Dem/Prog does end up being right then....POOF!...they're still wrong. Its's like magic ;)
Not that it would matter anyway. Volumes of data could be presented to most of you here to prove that climate change is happening and it is man made. Yet, you "scientists" would never accept it. The information would flow into your brain and the following results would spit out
1. The data has been forged by religous zealots.
2. Attack Al Gore!
3. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
4. Liberals are making money off of this and burning the American taxpayer.
I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here. I'm not sure if it is man made or not. It's a theory backed up by some evidence at this point. I'm not willing to make any judgment until more data is gathered and who knows how much the theory could alter at that point or if an answer will even present itself. That is, after all, the way of science. 8-)
"Volumes of data could be presented to most of you here to prove that climate change is happening and it is man made...."
"I'm not sure if it is man made or not."
In. The. Same. Two. Hundred. And. Forty. Seven. Word. Post.
Gutless to the end.
Volumes of data could be presented to most of you here to prove that climate change is happening and it is man made. Yet, you "scientists" would never accept it.
As usual for you, utter lies. "Climate Change" is bullshit, as well. Pick one. Is it "Global Warming" or not? "Climate Change" is the weasel-word for "Oh, shit, this isn't working out, use something that works no matter what."
Because you don't understand science, you don't understand critical thinking, and you're a talentless hack who bases his whole life off of move scripts.
But even more than that, you've missed a huge point. Even if you could prove that Global Warming - I'll use the term for you - was "happening" and and was "man-made", you still have to prove that's a bad thing. You have skipped that step entirely, into "Well, of course giving power to the government to control things is good, how can it not be?"
I've pointed this out to you before, but you're too damn ignorant to pay attention and say "You know, that's a point." The best damn thing we can do for our species - and most others - is raise the damn temperature a smidge. More food. More rain. Less deserts.
Now, assuming you start quoting someone who knows what the hell he or she is talking about, and who says that not only are we causing warming, but that's it's detrimental, now you still have to prove that what you're proposing to change is 1) effective, 2) costs less than the alternative, and 3) is adoptable.
You've jumped past a LOT of scientific conclusions, assumed some things, and then skipped all of those steps. Bjorn Lormborg, who isn't a Global Warming "denier" got excoriated because he dared to point out that economically, the costs of the proposed "solutions" far outweighed any calculated costs.
Just as above, even if you had something that was effective, even if it cost less than the alternative(s), if you can't get consensus for it, it's useless.
Well, to us, it is, because we understand how things work. You just look at the Chinese system, where they decree something, and shoot you if you don't do it their way and sigh, and smile and wistfully say "If only Obama could do that to those dumb bastards...."
Never once paying attention to the historical record of that thought process, and actively ignoring the people pointing directly to it in history books.
That's why it's a utter lie to say that you couldn't convince us - you don't even understand what you'd have to prove. So you're incompetent to judge.
I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here.
Verbatim.
I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here.
This... is why you fail.
I repeat Chris Byrne's admonition:
There can be no useful debate between two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.
Three years of you commenting here has proven that beyond any doubt.
Teacher boy, you just can't get it right, can you? You just cannot bring yourself to articulate the other guys argument correctly.
Al Gore is a jackass, just as you are a jackass. Look the word up. He loses all credibility by repeating the mantra, "The science is settled," which is an oxymoron. He doesn't know what science is, and you don't know what evidence is. You both demonstrate the truth of that repeatedly.
The argument is that the global warmenerists HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE.
The evidence has surfaced, and is not denied, which shows that their pronouncements are the culmination of escalation of hyperbole, originating from off-the-cuff and other such statements, and are not the result of peer-reviewed science. The dead giveaway, recognized and articulated by us long ago, is that they refuse to release the data on which their pronouncements were based. Scientists do precisely the opposite; such is the nature of the scientific method.
The pronouncements of the global warmenerists, in particular Al Gore, are based on politics, not science.
Now, we find the most blitheringly stupid thing you have ever posted in Kevin's parlor. Begin with:
"I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here."
No, you are irrational beyond measure, as you have demonstrated and we have analyzed for nearly three years.
Then we have this:
"I'm not sure if it is man made or not. It's a theory backed up by some evidence at this point. I'm not willing to make any judgment until more data is gathered and who knows how much the theory could alter at that point or if an answer will even present itself. That is, after all, the way of science."
That describes ME, teacher boy, except that I haven't seen any hard evidence it is so, and I've seen lots of evidence that it is not so, such as the global cooling of this century. The fact that all states (all except Hawaii) now have snow on the ground is hilarious in context, provided one doesn't have to shovel it.
Can you possibly get any more stupid? Is your reading comprehension really that shitty?
You badly need the services of a good psychiatrist. There are medications that can help you. Go.
The argument is that the global warmenerists HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE.
DJ, as far as you, Kevin, and most everyone here are concerned...no matter how many facts they present...THEY NEVER WILL.
*Sigh* (Part I of II)
I don't know why I bother, but: READ THIS
Here's the deal, slick: The hypothesis is scientifically UNLIKELY. The evidence is, at the very best, INCONCLUSIVE, but it has been DEMONSTRATED that scientists have manipulated that data to produce the results that they expected, rather than the reality that we're experiencing.
NOT ONE of the accepted climate models (of which there are apparently dozens) predicted a decade-long pause in warming. In science, this generally disproves a hypothesis, and generates a "That's interesting" reaction rather than a cover-up and data manipulation. The "solutions" required to "prevent" catastrophe are A) not solutions, but trade-offs [and bad ones at that] B) economy-destroying, C) totalitarian, and D) impossible to enforce worldwide. Therefore they are at best USELESS, and at worst destructive only to Western industrialized nations. (I point you to the story - that you oddly have not commented on - where the Chinese government just made a twenty-year deal to import 30,000,000 TONNES (that's metric - 2,200lbs per metric ton) of coal annually from Australia to run their POWER PLANTS. China - the country you keep pointing to swooningly that is so enthusiastic about "green" technology! China - the country that's going to release vast amounts of CO2 regardless of what the rest of the world wants or thinks.)
Is the climate warming? Has been since the Little Ice Age. Will it get warmer than it is now? Has before, no reason to believe it won't again. Does CO2 contribute? Doubtless. How much? Well, depends on who you listen to, but apparently far less than all the failed global warming models currently in vogue predict. Will the climate run away in an unstoppable positive-feedback loop? Read the linked piece.
T'ain't likely, McGee.
NOT ONE of the accepted climate models (of which there are apparently dozens) predicted a decade-long pause in warming.
Mark,
More importantly, not one, not for any length of time, has ANY climate model been able to PREDICT *any* FUTURE CLIMATE. At all. Period.
That's why it's not science, you idiot. This is "proof positive" that you do not even begin to understand science.
Even though it's been spelled out to you here multiple time.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/science_method.png
That's the basis for science, right there in a simple diagram.
I know, you don't know what those words mean - but that's not our fault. We've explained them time and time again.
Especially "Hypothesis" - which in your lexicon means "Some shit I just came up with that contradicts some other shit I said just a minute ago, or maybe even just a sentence ago"
But not the scientific lexicon.
If the hypothesis does not or can not predict behavior, it is incorrect. (There are hypothesis that cannot (yet) be tested, and as such they remain theoretical. Trust me. It's far, far, far beyond your ken.)
Period. Fucking. Period.
Every one of those "hypothesis" requires constant "hand fitting" to try and deal with the data that doesn't care what your personal proclivities are. Which is why the CRU and NASA and all these other places have been obfuscating the data, hiding it, deleting it.
Why?
Because it demonstrates how bad their lies are.
If they had been approaching this honestly, they wouldn't need to do that.
*Sigh* (Part II of II)
We've heard the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T SURRENDER OUR SOVEREIGNTY TO A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!" bit before, and many of us more than once. Perhaps - just perhaps - this is the last time the Boy that Cried Wolf will shout, but I'm not holding my breath. Experience tells me that there's no "there" there. You remember "experience," don't you? That's the thing that modern progressives pooh-pooh in favor of kow-towing to those of the "cultivated mind."
The science AIN'T THERE. WE KNOW IT. YOU DON'T. We OBJECT to attempts to re-engineer ENTIRE SOCIETIES based on LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS JUST IN CASE. Hell, we object to attempts to re-engineer entire societies JUST ON PRINCIPLE.
And that, sir, is the fundamental difference between us, and why you will never "reach" us, and we will never "reach" you. Our First Principles are diametrically opposed. You cannot "explain it better" and make us understand the superiority of your position, and vice-versa. You are NOT the "only rational one here" no matter how much you want to believe that. It is quite possible (though you are unable to grasp it) for different people to be perfectly rational and reach different conclusions given the same evidence WHEN YOUR FUNDAMENTAL WORLDVIEW IS DIFFERENT FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S. (I realize that shouting at you is completely useless, but it makes me feel better.)
The people here (other than yourself) live by one fundamental test: DOES IT WORK? I submit that our worldview produces results that pass that test far more often than does yours. Ours isn't perfect (far from it, in fact), but when we fail we're far less likely to respond by merely turning up the power unless experience tells us that is what we ought to do.
Remember how "The Surge" in Iraq was a failure? Joe Biden (you remember Joe Biden, the Vice President?) said that it was a failure. The Left was certain that it was a failure. It was the classic "escalation of failure," no? Only it wasn't.
That's only one example of literally thousands that have been explained in these comments over the previous three years. I'm not going to waste additional time doing more of the same. Personally, Markadelphia, I'm done with you. I will not prevent you from commenting here so long as you remain reasonably polite. If U-J and DJ and Bilgeman and others want to continue to bounce the Clue-Bat™ off your skull ineffectually, they're more than welcome to. When you post something as blindingly idiotic as "I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here." I will be more than happy to ridicule you publicly for the sheer joy of it, but I'm done trying to change your mind.
Sowell is right. There's no point in talking to you. Goodbye.
"DJ, as far as you, Kevin, and most everyone here are concerned...no matter how many facts they present...THEY NEVER WILL."
Once again, you cough up yet another instance of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. Once again, you simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like being accused of.
You remember your Standard Responses, don't you? Once again, they are all catalogued at:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
For nearly three years, we have demonstrated to you that evidence matters to us, and you have demonstrated that evidence doesn't matter to you. You descend to new depths of incredibility nearly every time time you comment here. It's difficult to imagine credibility less than zero, given that it is measured on a scale of zero to one, but you work hard at it.
Kevin stated, "I'm done trying to change your mind."
I quit trying to do that long ago, and I stated so. Your mind won't change. You will not integrate new knowledge into old knowledge if it is contrary to that old knowledge, and you will not discard knowledge that is demonstrated by others to be incorrect. You are driven by a fragile little ego that won't let you because you CANNOT admit significant error.
Kevin also stated, "When you post something as blindingly idiotic as 'I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here.' I will be more than happy to ridicule you publicly for the sheer joy of it ..."
Anyone who might read this and wonder, "Why are they beating up on this guy?" is invited to go read your comments here, beginning about April of 2007. The ink is dry, liar boy.
I wouldn't call it "sheer joy" to ridicule you publicly, but given how strongly you invite it, crave it, bait it, and keep on coming back for more of it, then I see nothing whatever wrong with it.
You fool no one, little boy.
Volumes of data could be presented to most of you here to prove that climate change is happening and it is man made.
So why hasn't it been? If the data is so good and so conclusive, why is all the public has gotten been speculation passed off as fact, student dissertations passed off as fact, unsubstantiated claims of activists passed off as fact, flat-out deliberate lies passed off as fact? To be fair, the railroad engineer in charge of the IPCC has done an incredible job of railroading, but that doesn't make him a scientist, does it?
As for Al Gore... does anyone actually care about Al Gore anymore?
You keep talking about proof... the statements I have made above can be proven, can be verified in seconds with a simple google search. Therefore whether AGW is a valid theory or not, the people who have pushed for political action based on AGW theory over the last decade have been proven to be untrustworthy.
Personally I'm willing to be generous and give Mr. Gore the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to assume that he's merely a dumbass rather than an active participant, even though both his personal commitment to the lifestyle he insists the rest of us must follow in order to avoid AGW and the investments he has made (and stands to profit handsomely from) based on the legislation he tells us we must enact in order to avoid AGW both strongly suggest otherwise.
But whether AGW is a valid theory or not, none of that changes the proven fact that Gore and others (among them you) have spent years cheerleading a deliberate hoax based on nothing more than speculation and fearmongering. Gore, specifically, has been cheerleading that hoax (and profiting handsomely from it) for over a decade now. That is proven.
Call that an attack if you wish, but it's no more of an "attack" than calling a wino a wino is an attack, or calling a white guy a white guy is an attack. It's an accurate description of his (and your) actions. If accuracy is damaging to you, well that's hardly anyone's fault but your own, is it?
What I find deliciously ironic about all this is that the people who have spent the last decade trying to sell this hoax have the chutzpah to call themselves "the reality-based community". To which I feel the only sensible reply is, "What color is the sky on your world?"
Ken, do you understand the meaning of the words "could be?"
DJ, you seek to disprove me by...immediately personally attacking Al Gore.
That describes ME, teacher boy, except that I haven't seen any hard evidence it is...
RATF-LMAO!!!! With your bias, DJ? It's will NEVER HAPPEN.
Now I'm going to spend some time pondering the more thougtful responses of Kevin and GOF...
Now I'm going to spend some time pondering the more thougtful responses of Kevin and GOF...
No, you didn't.
Sure I do, Thimblewit, but the words "could" and "be" do not appear together anywhere in the referenced comment, and more to the point nowhere in the specific statements I quoted.
"Does that mean I'm going to get kicked off if I express myself in the way DJ does? (e.g. calling him a jackass or a blithering idiot). I just want to see if different rules apply to me."
"Kevin, I don't mind the name calling directed at me, mind you."
Except for mentioning it every chance you get.
"I will continue to make every effort to not attack people personally on here."
That's true...because doing so takes sand you don't have. You'll just say "some here are like Al-Qaeda!" and when called on it, "Sure you want to go down that road?"
"Actually, it's more important to prove any Democrat or progressive wrong than do something to benefit this country."
I dunno about Democrats per se, but proving progressives wrong and benefitting this country are correlated north of 0.8, and statistically significant at p<.01. The data supporting this conclusion are at least as good (and as available) as Phil Jones's data.
I will not prevent you from commenting here so long as you remain reasonably polite.
Does that mean I'm going to get kicked off if I express myself in the way DJ does? (e.g. calling him a jackass or a blithering idiot). I just want to see if different rules apply to me.
Now, let's take a look at this comment from Kevin....
When you post something as blindingly idiotic as "I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here...
and this one....
We've heard the "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE DON'T SURRENDER OUR SOVEREIGNTY TO A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!" bit before, and many of us more than once.
Do you see the irony in both of these statements at all, Kevin?
Does that mean I'm going to get kicked off if I express myself in the way DJ does? (e.g. calling him a jackass or a blithering idiot). I just want to see if different rules apply to me.
Nope, you're more than welcome to respond in kind. However, if the comments turn into nothing but a flame-fest, I will intervene - on BOTH parties.
Bear in mind one thing: It is you doing the baiting here. I'd say three years of this indicates that I've treated you fairly. And both "jackass" and "blithering idiot" are more descriptive than pejorative when it comes to you, Markadelphia. ;)
I just want to see if different rules apply to me.
At this point, this needs to be added to the standard responses as at least a footnote.
"Do you see the irony in both of these statements at all, Kevin?"
I do now… that YOU are the one claiming there's anything wrong with them.
Though I am curious. What do you claim is ironic about the second statement?
"DJ, you seek to disprove me by...immediately personally attacking Al Gore."
No, I simply find the similarity of you two amusing, and I express it by stating my opinion.
Your comment is, yet again, an instance of your Standard Response #6, in which you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet another straw man. You can't help yourself, can you?
Me: "That describes ME, teacher boy, except that I haven't seen any hard evidence it is...
Marxisanidiot: "RATF-LMAO!!!! With your bias, DJ? It's will NEVER HAPPEN."
What this shows beyond any doubt is that you haven't read what I've commented here on the subject of global warmenering. Amazing, ain't it? You comment on what you haven't read. Your stupidity continues ever onward, ever deeper ...
Moreover, a statement of such preposterous syntax as "It's will never happen" shows that you don't even read what YOU write.
You fool no one, little boy.
I was going to comment on something, but this line, 'I take comfort in the fact that I'm the only rational one here.' , makes me start giggling and I can't finish!
the more thougtful responses of Kevin and GOF
Who, you will note, are both "irrational" by Marky's definition. Which makes me wonder what value anyone could reasonably expect those "thoughtful responses" from irrational people to have...
Definitely not here for the hunting.
Kevin, I don't mind the name calling directed at me, mind you. I will continue to make every effort to not attack people personally on here. Regardless of what anyone else does, I don't like it for my own personal reasons. I just think it's bad form and it weakens the argument. And, respectfully, I disagree regarding the baiting. When specific posts are directed towards me (and some even mentioning me by name), I don't see how that's my fault.
Now, on to some of what you said previously...
Alright, I read the "READ THIS." So what? It's cute but not very scientific.
China - the country you keep pointing to swooningly that is so enthusiastic about "green" technology!
I've never disputed that China will continue to be a big producer of CO2. My point was (and still is) that they are taking advantage of the wind turbine and solar energy market and we are not. Why? Because of people like you who, for whatever reason, place not being wrong in front of staying competitive and innovative in the international marketplace. Quite odd, when you consider that you are a capitalist.
T'ain't likely, McGee.
How do you KNOW this? Seriously, Kevin. You rag on me constantly for saying things are going to happen with no basis in logic or fact and then....you do the exact same thing! And why? Because you can't stand the fact that liberals might be right about something.
In the coming years, there will be more data that will support climate change. No doubt, your first reaction will be to dismiss it outright without examing the facts. You are more interested in disproving it than anything else. Virtually every one I know of your political slant says the exact same thing about climate change. Why? Same ol' reason. Here would be an example of this...
Remember how "The Surge" in Iraq was a failure?
It wasn't the troop increase that helped stabilize Iraq. It was a combination of a change in leadership (Gates and Patreaus) which then led to a change in tactics (The Woodward Strategy) coupled with payoffs and inclusion in the political process. Again, you dismiss the parts of the picture that don't fit with your bias.
My four points above stand and the comments made afterward prove them to be true. DJ called Al Gore a Jackass (#2) and you linked an article to how it's all a swindle (#4).
It wasn't the troop increase that helped stabilize Iraq. It was a combination of a change in leadership (Gates and Patreaus) which then led to a change in tactics (The Woodward Strategy) coupled with payoffs and inclusion in the political process. Again, you dismiss the parts of the picture that don't fit with your bias.
The FUCK I do. No sir, "the Surge" was all of that AND AN INCREASE IN TROOP STRENGTH. However, all the Left saw was the INCREASE IN TROOP STRENGTH. Remember "General Betray-Us"? It was all a package deal, and yet Biden proclaimed that it was a waste of time, as did many on the Left.
As to AGW, it IS a swindle, and that's ALL it is. It's an attempt by some to get rich, by others to push world governance, and by still others to hobble Western economies. Damned few actually think (including the IPCC reports) that anything we can do will affect whatever's going on significantly.
My point was
Considering I have yet to see any "point" from you that wasn't quickly traced back to some other source, I think this is another of your falsehoods.
that they are taking advantage of the wind turbine and solar energy market and we are not.
There *is* no "Wind turbine" and "Solar energy" market.
There's the power market. Usually measured in gallons or electrons. HOW YOU GET THERE DOESN'T MATTER. (Yes, there are the "boutique" operations where you promise to use or supply something. Trust me, That ain't what China's Doing.)
Why? Because of people like you who, for whatever reason, place not being wrong in front of staying competitive and innovative in the international marketplace. Quite odd, when you consider that you are a capitalist.
No, no, no, you lying sack who won't nut up, no.
First: I've already said that if you think so, you're free to make a company to do that. The fact that the US "isn't" doing that (which is bullshit, there are plenty of alternative energy companies, most funded directly by taxes far in excess of what they're worth.) doesn't prove a damn thing.
WE WON'T STOP YOU.
This is the most important piece you keep missing. DO IT. GO ON, DO IT (you'll learn a lot.) **WE** WON'T STOP YOU.
But the EPA...
But the local activists, but the local non-capitalists... THEY WILL DO THEIR BEST TO STOP YOU.
We're just telling you it's stupid and not cost-effective. That's it. We're not blocking you, suing you, or proposing new regulations or creative uses of current regulations.
Because we do believe in the free market. Hey, you can make power cheaper? Hot damn, I love lowering my bills.
Second: But what do you do? Consistanty propose ways to MAKE POWER **MORE** EXPENSIVE.
Wait, that's the exact ... opposite... of.. what.. would.. work.
Third: (mentioned above, but deserves it's own point) China *is* monolithic. They *can* (and do) shoot people who won't get "with the program". They're centrally led. It's easy to say "China is this, or China is that." (Though *trusting China's word for what the true goal or state is* is utterly imbecilic, and it's what we've made fun of you for many times - and why you're trying to ignore that we predicted this, you did not. (See also, the above hypothesis, and prediction being a requirement.)
We are not. We're a bunch of individuals. And if there was truly money to be made, you'd see people in that market. But your inability to grasp what "we" are and what "our direction" should be reveals much about yourself.
How do you KNOW this?
"Tain't likely" is a prediction. Your question is self-answered.
Seriously, Kevin. You rag on me constantly for saying things are going to happen with no basis in logic or fact and then....you do the exact same thing! And why? Because you can't stand the fact that liberals might be right about something.
He explained why. You ignored it. As you have all the other arguments you've lost. (Government programs getting smaller, definitions of words, amount of regulation in mortgage and financial markets........ among just a very few).
He explained it and then you said "But where's your explanation?" And then stuck to your emotionally loaded conclusion that had already been refuted.
Trust me. It's not being _right_ that irritates us about "Liberals".
You rag on me constantly for saying things are going to happen with no basis in logic or fact
You mean like
In the coming years, there will be more data that will support climate change.
That kind of "no basis in logic or fact"? A blanket prediction of the future with no more basis than the current crop of "evidence", all of which has been shown to be deliberately deceptive if not outright false?
T'ain't likely, McGee.
How do you KNOW this?
Which shows that if you did read the linked piece, you obviously didn't comprehend it. How does he KNOW this? Because he knows what you still do not, as illustrated in that "cute but not very scientific" piece you dismiss, that the presumption of runaway AGW violates fundamental principles of physics that have been proven since Aristotle's time.
Here's an interesting question for you Mark. In what respects, if any, does Al Gore differ from 'a fat cat capitalist gazillionaire growing steadily wealthier at the expense of the middle class', you know, the kind you are so fond of demonizing? Be specific, please.
So why hasn't it been?
Well, it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable by the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade.
the people who have pushed for political action based on AGW theory over the last decade have been proven to be untrustworthy.
...by the same brigade of people.
Gore and others (among them you) have spent years cheerleading a deliberate hoax based on nothing more than speculation and fearmongering. Gore, specifically, has been cheerleading that hoax (and profiting handsomely from it) for over a decade now. That is proven.
...by the same brigade of people. Sorry, GOF, but I don't trust the brigade. They ran our economy into the ground, fought a needless war which resulted in the people that attacked us on 9-11 getting a toe hold in a country with nuclear weapons, and then, being the gutless turds they are, blamed it all on the Democrats. I don't mind dissenting opinions on climate change but if they come via Fox News, American Thinker, or Townhall, they can pound salt up their lying asses because I know all too well what their agenda is and what they want.
And wasn't Al Gore quite wealthy before all of this started? And..um...are you now saying that making money is a bad thing after all the grief I get for bitching about profiteering? VERY confused, GOF.
What color is the sky on your world?
The color of the sky in my world tells me that the data gathered thus far shows that it might be a valid theory. Does that mean that it is for certain? No. I'd like to see some more data. Sadly, any real data that does come out will be immediately dismissed and politicized so we never will really know, will we? Meanwhile, a very large group of Chinese people are laughing at us and wonder why we have people who live in our country who place hubris before innovation.
What do you claim is ironic about the second statement?
The fact that Kevin laughs at me for claiming I am the rational one and then goes on to intimate that climate change is a plot to surrender our sovereignty to a global government. Does anyone think the latter is rational?
(Beating my head against the wall because it feels so good when I stop . . .)
The fact that Kevin laughs at me for claiming I am the rational one and then goes on to intimate that climate change is a plot to surrender our sovereignty to a global government.
Once again, no, Markadelphia. It's merely the latest in a long line of "The SKY IS FALLING!" predictions glommed onto by people who believe that Man Can Be Made Perfect in their never-ending attempt to drag us there, kicking and screaming if necessary.
Personally, I think "Peak Oil" has a better case, but I'm still not willing to give up my sovereignty so that some technocrats can control everyone's energy consumption to save us from ourselves.
Well, it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable by the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade.
You *are* counting these strawmen towards your carbon taxes, right?
Err, no. Mark, you're trying to run away from corner you've painted yourself into.
Now you're back to arguing science.
With Scientists. Who have your vaunted academic credentials. The ones you accuse us of not respecting. But I've got a hard science degree. Do you? Polymer Chemistry. BS. I've published research papers. My undergrad Senior Research Project not only got an "A", but it was used the next year by 2 masters students as their first step, as they expanded on what I'd done (and proven) into practical aspects. (Effects of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide on Nylon and Polyester if you want to wave sizes around.)
You're boned. Fucked. Screwed worse than a waitress between Kennedy and Dodd. And you know it.
But you can't admit your error. You can't admit that your worldview is emotionally based with no facts behind it.
So you spin and weave and throw accusations our way.
Basically, you're trying to yell RAAAAAAACIST! at us, but you can't. You can't even understand when we have disagreements amongst the group here, what we've disagreed *about*.
But we KNOW science. If you'll recall, we were PREDICTING what the "Global Warming" "Scientists" had done.
And we were right.
Our hypothesis was proven correct. We didn't know for certain they were fudging the numbers, but we could look at their conclusions, do some math on our own and say "Wait, that's not right." The "ClimateGate" emails were CONFIRMATION.
We knew it before that. We just hadn't proven it. Sometimes, especially when you have people hiding information, you can't.
Which is why science REQUIRES THE INFORMATION YOU'RE WORKING ON TO BE RELEASED FOR PEOPLE TO CHECK IT.
it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable
By those of us who have the skills, the qualifications, the past history of being able to deem acceptable or not for SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.
"The fact that Kevin laughs at me for claiming I am the rational one and then goes on to intimate that climate change is a plot to surrender our sovereignty to a global government. Does anyone think the latter is rational?"
Apparently you weren't paying attention to the goings on in Copenhagen. Or you simply ignored what you didn't like, again…
"Well, it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable by the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade."
…thus closing the loop on Vizinni's circular logic started by the reference to the poll on Republican positions.
To recap, "Republicans are evil because they believe these things. They believe these things because they're evil."
"I will continue to make every effort to not attack people personally on here."
Does this mean you're finally willing to take back your "just like Al Qaeda" slander?
Or those that can't tell that Atlas Shrugged is just a book?
Nah, he can't.
Kos said it, and he's writing a book about it, and if he "took it back", well, that would mean Kos was wrong.
"My point was (and still is) that they are taking advantage of the wind turbine and solar energy market and we are not."
Irony Alert!
Aside from that, are you claiming that no one in the United States is building wind and solar collection systems?
OK, so just to be clear...none of you subscribe to any of the variations of this theory...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
Does this mean you're finally willing to take back your "just like Al Qaeda" slander?
Certainly. When you
-recognize that homosexuals should have equal rights as the rest of our population, can teach our children, and are not "sinners who will burn before Allah.." Oops...sorry...God ;)
-cease to condone torture as an effective method of intelligence gathering and/or defense
-state that an athiest president would be just as effective as a Christian one
-leave behind xenophobia and overly psychotic, nationalistic chest thumping
-stand against the book of Genesis being taught in public schools as an explanation of how the world was created
-cease viewing women as cattle
-stop thinking that contraceptives should be banned and/or is abortion
-no longer think that the ONLY way to get to heaven is through your faith and your faith alone
-do not blindly believe that violence and destruction is the ONLY way to deal with your enemy
-can admit fault
then I will have no problem retracting my statement and issuing a full apology.
-can admit fault
Oho, you Al-Queda bastard!
(The rest of that list is hilarious. Too bad it doesn't apply to us.)
Oh, and while it's shooting fish in a barrel....
Does this mean you're finally willing to take back your "just like Al Qaeda" slander?
Certainly.
Then you didn't take it back. So it wasn't "Certainly", it was "no".
Guess we can add "Certainly" to the lists of "words Mark doesn't know". (Also known as the "Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language")
This statement of Marxadopia is utterly hilarious:
"Well, it has but all of it has been deemed unacceptable by the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade."
Now, teacher boy, go read your own comment above. You took issue with me, saying:
"RATF-LMAO!!!! With your bias, DJ? It's will NEVER HAPPEN."
when I agreed with you, a self-admitted liberal, that, to quote you:
"I'm not sure if it is man made or not. It's a theory backed up by some evidence at this point. I'm not willing to make any judgment until more data is gathered and who knows how much the theory could alter at that point or if an answer will even present itself. That is, after all, the way of science."
taking exception only that I claim to have seen no hard evidence of it, whereas you claim there is "some evidence".
Oh, the irony ...
Little boy, you are disputing yourself, and you are arguing with yourself. How does your head not explode?
With you, it's always about the quick retort, ain't it? With you, it's never about actually understanding what someone else says, is it? It's never about thinking through the consequences of your own words, is it?
"DJ called Al Gore a Jackass ..."
I called YOU a jackass, too. I stated (emphasis added):
"Al Gore is a jackass, just as you are a jackass."
followed by:
"Look the word up."
Here; I'll do it for you. It takes four mouse clicks: two to select it, one to bring up a context-senstive menu, and one to select "Search The Free Dictionary for "jackass". You should try looking up the definitions of words; it'll open up a whole new world for you.
jackass
n.
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) a male donkey
2. a stupid person; fool
Well, the first definition is not appropriate, but the second one is a perfect fit for you. I suggest you try remembering that, here in Kevin's parlor, many people have called you stupid many times, and many people have called you a fool many times. Are you just now taking exception to it?
You (ahem) fool no one, little boy.
Sorry, GOF, but I don't trust the brigade.
Exactly. "Global Warming Skeptics" say it, therefore it's automatically wrong. It doesn't even matter if people admit they've cooked their data, they were accused of it by conservatives therefore they didn't really. Why am I not surprised by this?
...if they come via Fox News, American Thinker, or Townhall, they can pound salt up their lying asses because I know all too well what their agenda is and what they want.
But of course if Daily Kos posts something you agree with, everyone should ignore the source and accept it as truth, because everyone knows Daily Kos doesn't have any agenda.
'Nuff said.
No, not the global warming skeptics. I trust the real ones. The guys I don't trust are the ones trotted out by Glenn Beck to go chop down a tree on Earth Day or something.
Other than the poll, I've never read the Daily Kos although I hear that Marcos has ripped off my idea for his new book....American Taliban >:o And no, it isn't the John Walker Lindh story.
Bullshit. You've just lumped the London Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian together with the "ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade." If you had bothered to follow the links to the sources you would have known that. But then, if you bothered to follow the sourcing of the IPCC report itself you'd be able to see how much it accepts as fact non-peer-reviewed pieces by professional activists, freelance journalists and students. It's right there in the bibliographies if you bother to look. Don't take my word for it, go look it up, although the Times Online site seems a little flaky today.
So... since you have loudly and publicly proclaimed the Times of London, and the freaking Guardian for cryin out loud, to be right-wing smear sites with no possible connection to the truth, I'll take it as given that you'll only concede what a deliberate hoax is all is right after Keith Olbermann does.
Ya know, the notion that you are paid to teach gets a little creepier every time I talk to you.
Tell ya what, Mark. You want to try to get people on board with the "science" behind AGW, and convince us it's real? Fine. Here's a project for you that I think will see real results for you here, if you can pull it off. The man is one of the most imminent scientists of the 20th century and is an Obama supporter, so it should be an easy gig, right?
Wanna convince me that AGW is something other than bullshit? Convince Freeman Dyson.
http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman-dyson.php
Damn. "Eminent". Sheesh.
If you had bothered to follow the links to the sources you would have known that...
What links are you refering to, GOF? In this thread?
In those stories from Townhall and Hot Air and the like. You can claim all you want that "the ANYTHING BUT LIBERALS BEING RIGHT brigade" are the only ones who consider the story to be truthful, but even a cursory scan of the links such articles routinely provide will show you that they didn't break the story, nor are they continuing to develop it... they're only following the developments. The people who broke the story and are developing it are all writers for the London Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian, so far as I can tell.
And if you looked at the original IPCC report and did google searches on the authors of the various things they consider "evidence", you wouldn't even have to take their word for it, since they are obviously "right wing smear sites", having dared to report actual news. You know, unlike the New York Times who deliberately spiked a story for fear it would affect Obama's chances of election, or MS-NBC who carefully left the face and hands of an armed black man at a tea party rally out of the frame while they used him as background for a story about "armed white racists at tea parties", or CBS who deliberately chose to run a forgery as if it were fact to embarrass Bush. Ya know, news? I realize you may be unfamiliar with the concept, just as you are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of checking sources.
So.... it's not a case of "the right wingers made it up", unless you actually count the Times, Telegraph and Guardian among that number. It's that the places you go to for "news" have declined to report it.
"Certainly. When you"
Oh wow. Thank you! I couldn't have asked for better proof THAT. YOU. DON'T. HAVE. A. FARGGING. CLUE.
NOT. ONE. FREAKIN'. GLIMMER. OF. A. CLUE.
NOT. EVEN. STARS. WHEN. HIT. BY. A. CLUEBAT. THE. SIZE. OF. CLEVELAND!
Not one of those points was correct. NOT. A. SINGLE. ONE!
About half of them were as wrong as calling black, white, or calling true, false (in a boolean sense). Zero basis in reality. Zip. Nada. None. Zilch. Complete, 100% fabrications. Castles in the air. Out and out demonization.
Some bear a passing resemblance to my convictions, but they tend to be both strawman (i.e., distorted) versions of my convications, and based upon assumptions that simply aren't true.
And one simply violates basic logic—as in Logic 101; logic every child inherently recognizes it almost as soon as they can talk. It's called the Law of Non-Contradiction. I know you've heard of it, because I've pointed it out to you before.
You expect any of us to take you seriously when you cannot even understand logic that any 5 year old understands?!? ("Is too! Is not! Is too! Is not!")
I can explain why every single point that YOU claim I think is wrong. But I'm still convinced that it would be a total waste of time. And I am not willing to waste it.
So why don't you help me with point 10? ("can admit fault") Convince me that I'm wrong about you. Convince me that it would not be a waste of time to explain these things to you. Convince me that you would A) accept that my statements about my convictions are what I actually believe (none of this "well you say X but I know you mean Y" crap), and B) you would both recognize that I actually wrote something and that you would actually understand it. Every time you post crap like this, it just adds more proof that your mind is made up, and even a face to face meeting with God himself would be unlikely to change your mind.
While we're doing comparisons, let's look at statements from someone you might have heard of:
"…blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming…"
"…blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."
"The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink," he said. "World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism."
"…noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said "are the true criminals against the global climate" and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving "tens of millions into poverty and unemployment."
"…also called for the "punishing and holding to account" of corporation chiefs…"
"Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality," he said … adding: "All of the industrialised countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility."
"Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia."
"The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent,"
(Sources: here, here, here, and here)
Sound like anyone we know?
Mark, From our friend the NinjaViking (who'd very much LIKE SOME GLOBAL WARMING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH...)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GsKRm1vil1g/S0Ui5f2AmuI/AAAAAAAAAB8/qBG4KqUXYcw/s1600-h/fractalwrongness.jpg
Tell you what, Ed. I'm feeling charitable today. I will address each of bin Laden's points and demonstrate that I honestly don't bear any resemblance to them.
"…blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming…"
The jury is still out on this one as far as I'm concerned. It's likely but not 100 percent fact and probably never will be. We need more research, more data, and less politicizing of this issue. So he's wrong about that.
"…blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."
Whether global warming is responsible for all of this, again, remains to be seen. The US, along with other nations, does bear a responsibility for political destabilization in certain regions that leads to hunger. Unlike Sarah Palin's inability to admit fault or take responsibility for US actions, our current leadership, for the most part, recognizes that our nation has made mistakes and will probably make more. Of course, heaping on the US is just as much bullshit as Palin's warped view of the world. Many of the nations we try to help have leaders who are little more than mafioso--thugs--criminals who steal much of the aid we send and use it to solidfy their power. Just because they aren't white doesn't mean they are magically pure. I would point to the various leaders in places like Sudan and Somalia as evidence of this fact.
"The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink," he said. "World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism."
Well, I love capitalism. And we need to monitor government interference in the marketplace to foster innovation. At the same time, however, we need to keep an eye towards social cohesion. Corporations like Blackwater and Wal Mart are rife with criminals. The trick is to have reasonable oversight that leads to innovation and maintains social cohesion. Of course, bin Laden wants neither of these as he exists only to destroy and enslave. In fact, this is a more accurate description of himself.
"…noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol..."
This makes no sense when you consider the number of jobs that could be created with green tech. Sounding pretty desperate here...
"…also called for the "punishing and holding to account" of corporation chiefs…"
Well, who is he talking about? If people broke the law, they should be punished. Where is his list of names?
"Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality," he said … adding: "All of the industrialised countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility."
"The effects of global warming..."
Again, we need more data and research. At the same time, we need to stay competitive with the Chinese regarding wind turbines and solar energy. Whether it's real or not, is immaterial. There's money to be made, son!
Part II
"Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia."
This is a blanket statement that could apply to any leader of any country. I don't think that President Obama is akin to Tony Soprano, do you? We do makes mistakes and cause problems in the world. In our history, we have made some awful ones. At the same time, however...
"The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."
--President Barack Obama December 10, 2009
That all being said...I have to say...again...who cares what bin Laden thinks? He's a psychotic mass murderer. Are you that ideologically weak that his words mean anything to you?
I've done my bit. Go ahead and address my points above regarding the commonality of the base and...the base. Prove Moulitsas wrong when he says "progressives hate radical Jihadists for the same reason they hate conservatives--intolerance, militarism, disrespect for democracy, and a desire to impose their regressive mores on the rest of society."
Good luck :*
Go ahead and address my points above regarding the commonality of the base and...the base.
Done, sliced, diced, served and rejected. (Even aside from the logical fallacies inherent in your "points")
Many times before.
That you don't realize it? Well, it's not our fault you're incapable of critical thinking.
(I blame the schools.)
Marxy,
You still don't get it, do you? You keep proving that you refuse to even acknowledge what we write. Therefore, it's a waste of time to try. For example, here you did three things:
- Ignored my refusal to argue until you prove that it's not a waste of time.
- Used "social cohesion" again without defining it, despite NUMEROUS requests that you do so.
- Spent a huge amount of time trying to explain away claims that are far more similar to YOUR arguments than MINE, totally missing the point about similarities to Al Qaeda. (Did you get whiplash from having to dodge so hard to miss that point?)
Convince me that arguing with you is not a waste of time.
re: "Convince me that arguing with you is not a waste of time."
Here's an idea: Maybe you could start by FINALLY defining "Social Cohesion".
"Used "social cohesion" again without defining it, despite NUMEROUS requests that you do so."
I have, Ed, several times. Do you need the link for the Manzi article again? Have you even read it? Juris sent it to me and it really changed my outlook on what is needed for our country. After you've read it, when can discuss social cohesion.
As far as my JLAQ theory, disprove me. I addressed your list. You haven't addressed mine.
"I have, Ed, several times."
Bull. Shit. I've continued to follow those threads, and not once have you said anything like what you just wrote here. In fact, you have done nothing at all to define "social cohesion", even though you continued to use that phrase.
"Do you need the link for the Manzi article again?"
Yes
"You haven't addressed mine."
No I haven't. Do you remember why? Your latest post in the education thread provided yet more E V I D E N C E about why I shouldn't waste the time.
As far as my JLAQ theory, disprove me.
If it were a theory, it could be. Since it's not (you're just misusing a word again), it can't be. Which is why you're putting the trappings of science on top of your aphasiac thoughts. You're cargo-culting, trying for referred creditability.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge
After you have read it, we can discuss social cohesion as that is the framework in which I am considering it.
Mark is truly the only idiot I've seen here will wander in, drop a steamy turd of an idea down, and then demand that everyone spend their time disproving it, rather than, y'know, trying to prove it, give evidence for it, or do something in the way of trying to assert that it is something other than the turd it is.
Here's an idea, Mark - quit trying to link in sources you don't understand (I've lost count of how many times you've posted something that completely contradicts the point you're trying to make). Read information, internalize it, think about it, and then try presenting the idea yourself.
I'm not surprised you're horrifically concerned with citations and the possible bias of the source - you can't be bothered to understand information, so you just go by plurality of data (not bothering to read it, of course).
Still pretending to be offended, too, I see.
Liar boy, you are, yet again, coughing up yet another instance of your Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response, in which you simply lay on the blather, slathering on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declare, "I answered your question." Once again, you'll find your standard responses catalogued at
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
The question that Ed has posed to you is to define the term "social cohesion".
The link you provided above is to an article in which we find statements such as ...
"... disruption that could seriously undermine America's social cohesion — which is not only essential to a decent and just society, ..."
"... which harms both our ability to compete and our capacity for social cohesion."
"This resistance movement — which in a sense came to power with the Nixon administration — was clearly concerned with questions of social cohesion ..."
"... the worry that economic dynamism was harmful to social cohesion."
"So economic inequality is likely to cause problems with social cohesion ..."
"... we will hollow out the middle class — threatening social cohesion, ..."
"... or to ignore the necessity of social cohesion ..."
"Balancing economic innovation and social cohesion ..."
Count 'em, teacher boy. This article uses the term "social cohesion" eight times, but NOWHERE does the article DEFINE it.
Ed has asked you several times to define the term "social cohesion". You have not done so. All you have done is lie by stating that you have done so, and you point to this article.
Now, lest you forget your own past, I suggest you go open the comments to the following post, search therein for the word "liar", and refresh yourself as to just what a lying little boy you are:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/09/rapture-of-marxists.html
You just can't help yourself, can you?
There's that link!
Thanks, DJ. Marxy recently had a post on his blog where he showed that he had completely forgotten all the facts contrary to his ideology about the economic collapse. The comments to the post you linked is one of those places where Marxy had been exposed to a complete education, complete with E V I D E N C E, but as usual, it could have been written in Swahili as far as Marxy was concerned.
Hey, check it out! I found a definition of "social cohesion" in Part II of the education article that Kevin linked to (and which Marxy hates). However, it doesn't sound like Markaphasia's working definition:
"Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci posited that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion, as they provide the social cohesion necessary to a healthy functional society. Transform the principles that these embody and you can destroy the society they have shaped."
Given Marxy's historical (hysterical??) position on many of these areas, this can't be the definition he has in mind.
I've printed out the article so I can read it at my leisure.
But at first blush, it appears that DJ is right. I did a search in the article for "social cohesion" and scanned through the context where it was used every time (including full paragraphs on either side of that phrase). I did not see any place where it's defined.
Furthermore, you have often given words and phrases your own private meanings. So that means that even if Manzi did define it one way, that does not necessarily mean that you hold the same definition.
Therefore, to make sure we're on the same page, YOU should define what "social cohesion" means TO YOU.
Part 1 of 2
I addressed your list. You haven't addressed mine.
I thought you'd never ask.
-recognize that homosexuals should have equal rights as the rest of our population, can teach our children, and are not "sinners who will burn before Allah.." Oops...sorry...God
Aw hell, where does one begin? Quite aside from the fact that this standard defines about a third of "the conservative base", including Darth Cheney(tm) himself, as less "just like Al-Qaeda" than the President you have a man-crush on...
Let's see, the semantic content of that statement is pretty low, but let's see what we can get.
"Equal rights..." See above.
"Can teach our children..." I'm okay with them teaching your children, or for that matter mine. But there are two separate points buried in here. One is your apparent contention that parents should be required to respect your prejudices, but teachers should not be required to respect those of parents. The other is your apparent contention that straight teachers should be required to be effectively asexual per the long standing cultural convention known as "professionalism",but that gay teachers should not be bound by such restrictions.
-cease to condone torture as an effective method of intelligence gathering and/or defense
Semantic content: ZERO. "Torture" is a legal definition. At the time those interrogations were done, they were legally defined as not being torture. Just because people you approve of changed that definition later does not change the conditions that obtained when those actions were taken.
In short, you're saying "the base" is "just like Al-Qaeda" because we don't think you can turn back time and make things unhappen.
-state that an athiest president would be just as effective as a Christian one
Why? Based on what? A fair percentage of the people you have accused and insulted with this slander are themselves atheist or agnostic, including both me and our host. This is just another way of saying "the science is settled" or "I won." It's a declaration that even considering the point to be debatable renders one "just like Al-Qaeda." In short, it's a declaration in favor of tyranny, is it not?
-leave behind xenophobia and overly psychotic, nationalistic chest thumping
Semantic content: ZERO. If I had to pick out an example of "xenophobia and overly psychotic chest thumping" from Kevin's archives, I'd be hard put to find a better candidate than this very gem I am currently picking apart.
-stand against the book of Genesis being taught in public schools as an explanation of how the world was created
Again, why? I'll grant you that I wouldn't put it in the "hard sciences", but that's not what you're suggesting. You're basically saying that either Comparative Religion should never be taught in any school, or if it is it should exclude Judeo-Christian creation theory. Either that or you're trying to imply that a Christian (like Copernicus or Newton) is simply not capable of objective science and their views should be banned.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think is so terrible about letting presumably intelligent students, who you assure me are taught critical thinking and analysis skills, judge for themselves whether such ideas hold water or not? Or am I assuming too much by thinking you consider them intelligent and capable of thinking things through?
Part 2 of 2
-cease viewing women as cattle
Semantic content: ZERO. Of course being from Texas I naturally have a pinup of a sweet lookin heifer on my wall at all times. This month's brangus looks yummy indeed.
Are you both disgusted and amused yet? Rest assured, it looks just as offensive and idiotic coming out of your mouth as it does mine.
-stop thinking that contraceptives should be banned and/or is abortion
In light of the actual content of the now infamous "Tim Tebow ads" and the left's quite predictable and in fact predicted reaction before they even saw it... do you really want to go there?
-no longer think that the ONLY way to get to heaven is through your faith and your faith alone
Okay waitaminit.... I coulda sworn you yourself claimed to be a Christian. Not being one myself I may of course be in error, but... isn't this a basic tenet of Christianity, pretty much regardless of which particular sect you belong to? You mean... you don't believe this, and yet still consider yourself a Christian? Does that work? How?
Or are you saying that yes, you do in fact believe that and that therefore you are "just like Al-Qaeda"?
It's official. I'm freaking confused.
-do not blindly believe that violence and destruction is the ONLY way to deal with your enemy
Semantic content: ZERO. Among other reasons, "blindly" renders the entire thing void of meaning, as does "only". I have no doubt whatever that is intentional.
-can admit fault
Semantic content: ZERO. It's probably a rare commenter here that you couldn't do an archive search and find an admission of fault in some manner, but that's obviously not satisfactory so another, more restricted meaning is implied. This other meaning is, per usual practice, not defined.
then I will have no problem retracting my statement and issuing a full apology.
Conclusion: You will retract your statement when we agree with whatever your personal prejudices are, and not before. Unless we are noticeably to the left of Barack Obama himself, we are all "just like Al-Qaeda."
'Nuff said. As so often happens, your comments say more about you than they do about the person you're speaking to or even the subject you are talking about. Imagine my surprise.
"-can admit fault
Semantic content: ZERO. It's probably a rare commenter here that you couldn't do an archive search and find an admission of fault in some manner, but that's obviously not satisfactory so another, more restricted meaning is implied. This other meaning is, per usual practice, not defined. "
Better than that - ask Mark if he can find even one person he's arguing against here who has not admitted fault.
Hell, one need only search Beck to see us all doing various forms of backpeddling.
"-can admit fault"
Marxaphasia's list was directed specifically at me. Ironically enough, he posted this claim just days after I did exactly that on his own freakin' blog!
Ed: "I also noticed that you "somehow forgot" to include a link to my comments so that people couldn't tell that you ripped some of my statements out of context."
Marxy: "I included a link to the comment thread in the main post, Ed. The words "The Smallest Minority" were linked to go directly to the discussion."
Ed: "Ohh. I missed that. My apologies. I withdraw the part about you deliberately skipping the link, though the part about your selective quoting is still true."
"It's official. I'm freaking confused."
Easy, there, Grumpy. Remember, much of what he says is just a "retort of the moment", and he admits that he seldom ever proofreads anything he writes here. So, there's no need for confusion, as gibberish is, by definition, confusing. Here, I'll show you:
gibberish
n.
Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
Yup. That sums it up, doesn't it?
"-can admit fault"
Sack boy, you continue to sink to ever lower depths of hypocrisy. The defining characteristic of your pathological personality is that you CANNOT admit serious error.
You fool no one.
10 Hours Ago: "…blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming…"
The jury is still out on this one as far as I'm concerned. It's likely but not 100 percent fact and probably never will be. We need more research, more data, and less politicizing of this issue. So he's wrong about that.
2 Hours Ago: GOF, the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid.
So it only took you about 8 hours to come back around to the position (again) that AGW is almost certainly true, just like Bin Laden?
Sure looks DJ is right about the "response of the moment".
Well, that's only if you take the IPCC report at face value. My point in mentioning it was that even the AGW supporters say that their theory is possibly wrong...just as I could be about it being valid or not being valid.
Which brings to a very large difference between myself and most of you...I don't set my mind in granite and let it sit there forever until the end of all time. I know it's tough to grasp the grays of life but that's just how the world is, folks. Keep trying to stick a square peg in a round hole and you'll spend most of your life being quite frustrated.
GOF, great response. I mean it...honestly. Regarding yourself, I retract my statement and offer my sincerest apologies. You are nothing like Al Qaeda. In fact, I think you may have a future writing comedy. I see a big career ahead of you if you so desire. I am going to be laughing about this one
Of course being from Texas I naturally have a pinup of a sweet lookin heifer on my wall at all times. This month's brangus looks yummy indeed.
for a long time. Muchos Gracias....
My point in mentioning it was that even the AGW supporters say that their theory is possibly wrong...just as I could be about it being valid or not being valid.
Your point was to prove you don't understand science, despite multiple explanations. This is due to your deliberate obtuseness.
Nor does the IPCC say what you say it says. You're projecting, again. You, like you did with Obama, telling us what you WANT it to say.
I guess you knew what "questions to ask" it.
Which brings to a very large difference between myself and most of you...I don't set my mind in granite and let it sit there forever until the end of all time. I know it's tough to grasp the grays of life but that's just how the world is, folks.
Not only do you stick your mind in granite, you do so without any regard to where you're setting it, and then refuse to admit that your position is not what you thought it was.
Thus the myriad errors and continual exhibition of your dysfunctional thought process. Thus the inability to use words correctly, making up your own definitions as they suit you, and using them interchangeably - and without warning of the context change - in order to bolster your "intellectual" arguments. Which are invariably, cuts and pastes from someone else.
The discussion here that would have done you the most good - you avoided.
PermaLink
There. Read that. It explains why we can't get science, fact, and history through to you - You've got the Unconstrained Vision.
For clarity:
the IPCC report is pretty clear in its assessment. AGW is a theory that has about a 90 percent chance of being valid.
It does not say that, and that is not how it would be evaluated. Period.
You're lying.
Marxy posted this link to a Reason article over on the education thread. It seems that's where he got his numbers from:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Summary for Policymakers of its 4th Scientific Assessment of Climate Change (4AR) in Paris earlier today. (The whole report will be published in May.) The Summary declares that "warming in the climate system is unequivocal" and that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." In the lexicon of the Summary's authors, very likely means that they believe that there is more than a 90 percent chance that the last half century of warming is humanity's fault."
I noticed a couple of things about this quote:
1) It's from 3 full years ago, which means it doesn't take into account any of the more recent Climategate revelations, yet Marxy's claims have almost a 1 to 1 correspondence to this paragraph. That shows his inability to consolidate new data.
2) The 90% figure is for "anthropogenic causes" while that there is warming is "unequivocal". Yet we now have an admission from the head of the organization that managed the data that warming ceased around 1998, 9 years before this article. AND that what warming did occur "in the last half century" was all due to natural causes.
So despite those problem we have Marxy still claiming that AGW is "90% certain" compared to Bin Laden's "dogmatically certain", and contrasted with our conclusion (based on FAR more recent evidence) that we're roughly 95% certain AGW is a hoax. So who's closer to AQ again?
BTW, I used to accept that warming was still happening (but not caused by humans) up until about a year ago. That's when I started finding out that there was evidence that warming had stopped back in '98. (Specifically, the discovery that Hanson's computer program had a bug that made temperatures from 2000 and on higher than they actually were was a key bit of evidence.) That's called looking at the evidence and adjusting a belief to include the new information.
Oho. That makes sense.
So the 90% *isn't* from the IPCC (even when they're making stuff up, they know how to better than that), but it's a description from somewhere he cribbed, without noting that too well.
Gotcha.
I am going to be laughing about this one
Of course being from Texas I naturally have a pinup of a sweet lookin heifer on my wall at all times. This month's brangus looks yummy indeed.
for a long time. Muchos Gracias....
You are very welcome. Not only did I enjoy writing it, but this thread needed a little lightening up. However, that avoids the nuts and bolts of my response.
You posted ten points you considered the conditions under which you'd retract your slander. Five of those ten had a semantic content of ZERO, they had no meaning whatsoever. Of the remaining five:
The "gay rights" point is nothing more than "if you disagree with my personal prejudices, you are just like Al-Qaeda... unless you're Obama cos I have a man-crush on him, or unless you're Darth Cheney cos you're just like Al-Qaeda regardless of what you do or say."
The atheist President point is nothing more than "wanting to debate the point at all makes you just like Al-Qaeda", in short it's yet another "if you disagree with my prejudices..."
The creationism point is stating that students should not be allowed to judge the truth or falsehood of religious doctrine themselves, and that if you think they should you are just like Al-Qaeda. Presumably that means they should just take your wod for it, in other words, they must agree with your prejudices... again.
The point about needing to be Christian to get to heaven, I'm still waiting for an answer from you on.
The point about an irrational response to abortion/contraception... I will happily go there with you if ya want, but you'll get yer ass handed to you.
So... five statements with no meaning whatsoever, two demands that everyone comply with your personal prejudices, a statement against actual teaching and in favor of indoctrination instead (once again, demanding agreement with your prejudices), a statement that seems to be at odds with your own beliefs which I'm still waiting for you to clarify, and a statement so at odds with reality that you dare not expand on it. None left over.
And you think I'm the only person here you should apologize to?
If you think conservatives "treat women like cattle", I have to wonder where you think little conservatives come from... unless you are suggesting that we treat women and cattle pretty much the same, in which case, well... eeeww.
There is the story of the farmer who walked into the house leading a sheep by a halter. His wife was sitting on the sofa, watching television.
He said, "Here's the cow I make love to when you have a headache."
She said, "If you weren't such a stupid fool, you'd see that isn't a cow, it's a sheep."
He said, "If you weren't such a presumptuous bitch, you'd see I was talking to the sheep."
GOF, a long day and you made crack up again...thanks...
To your points,
but that gay teachers should not be bound by such restrictions.
No, I think that everyone should leave their sex life at home regardless of whom they sleep with (man, woman or cattle...sorry couldn't resist). Your comments here generall reflect my views. However, they do not reflect the views of Sarah and Ed, for example, who think that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry nor teach our children. This is the same belief held by Al Qaeda.
Semantic content: ZERO. "Torture" is a legal definition....
I'm not the one giving torture meaning here, GOF. That would be someone like Dick Cheney was has said several times that EITs are necessary to the defense of our country. This view has been echoed by several on here. In fact, many have said that President Obama has weakened our country by expressly forbidden what IS clearly torture as defined by actual interrorgators and not speech writers. I think you will agree that Al Qaeda uses these same techniques on our soldiers hence the obvious commonality.
Why? Based on what?
Like Al Qaeda, the base would like to see a wholly run Christian society similar to Sharia Law. I know that's not you nor Kevin but it is the people your support. There is no way in heck that a man or woman could win the presidency and NOT believe in the Christian God...just as you won't see a Jewish person rallying potential Al Qaeda members.
If I had to pick out an example of "xenophobia and overly psychotic chest thumping"
Well, that is one question that I have pondered quite a bit: am I intolerant of intolerance? That's a tough one. As far as an example goes, pick any of the entries (there are dozens) in which Kevin et al have stated that the US has nothing to apologize for in regards to the Muslim world. I recall a debate regarding Iran in which the coup we helped orchestrate in the 1950s was necessary for our national security. Our entire relationship with Iran has evolved from our horrible mistake and yet no one here is willing to admit fault. They're Muslim---fuck 'em! Al Qaeda has issued similar communiques which reflect a pathological hatred of the West as well as a fervent belief that they are always right.
You're basically saying that either Comparative Religion should never be taught in any school,
As philosophy, absolutely yes. As science, no. But that (JLAQ) is what they want, GOF. They view evolution as heretical and any explanation that doesn't involved God is the work of the devil. Again, we are in agreement on this point. I do think that students are very intelligent and can think things through on their own. But I think you will agree that presenting it in physics or biology is wrong. Remember, many on the right don't want scientific theory taught at all. That's why they home school! THEY are the ones that don't want their kids exposed to the heresy and think that they shouldn't judge for themselves...JLAQ.
Are you both disgusted and amused yet?
Tim Tebow etc...
I put up the cattle reference because it is quite clear that most on the right think that abortion is murder. Fair enough. That's their belief. But by stating that they want the government, through a religious belief, to tell a woman what to do with her body, they become JLAQ. Not as bad, mind you, but their belief still puts women in a category of being controlled. How do they actually know for certain it's life? They really don't. I know I don't. It's above my pay grade ;) .
This brings up another way they are JLAQ...many on the right apparently know how God thinks and feels. They have taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment....something the Bible expressly forbids...and yet they do it anyway.They would love it if they could run our sex lives. Doesn't AQ think contraception is against the will of God? Sitting in judgment as well....
and yet still consider yourself a Christian? Does that work? How?
I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I believe that it is only through him that I can get to heaven. If someone else believes something different, it's not for me to judge. That's God's job. Perhaps God knows something I don't...he/she is all powerful and knowing and a pathetic human such as myself can't be expected to understand how his/her perfect mind works? Now if I was part of either base, I would understand this :*
Semantic content: ZERO. Among other reasons, "blindly" renders...
Both AQ and the Dick Cheneys and Sarah Palins of the world believe that military action--violence--is the only way to defeat your enemy. Both sides use "crusade" and "holy war" language in their propanganda.
This other meaning is, per usual practice, not defined.
This goes back to the Iran coup discussion as well as the inability to see US foreign policy (esp in the Islamic world) as anything other than pure. Iraq is another example of this. It was a huge mistake especially from a strategic standpoint. We have an Al Qaeda base in an unstable country that has nuclear weapons. Isn't that what Bush was trying to stop? Instead of admitting fault, Iraq has been touted as a success even when in the face of a myriad of facts, it wasn't.
And you think I'm the only person here you should apologize to?
I would add juris and mastiff into your category as well although I think I did single them out as being excluded from my JLAQ characterization. If I didn't, I offer my full apologies to both of you and retract my statement.
Something else...in the case of our illustrious host, I will stipulate that he does not fit 6 of the 10 commonalities...so a D- for him 8-)
Dick Cheneys and Sarah Palins of the world believe that military action--violence--is the only way to defeat your enemy. Both sides use "crusade" and "holy war" language
Ah, back to "asking yourself the right question" to know what people's minds are.
Care to quote something like that from Cheney or Palin?
It was a huge mistake especially from a strategic standpoint.
No, it wasn't, and you've been slapped with that enough here to know better than to keep trotting it out.
From a strategic standpoint, it was a requirement.
Wait.
What do you think "Strategic" means?
(Or "standpoint"?) ("Mistake"?)
However, they do not reflect the views of Sarah and Ed, for example, who think that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry nor teach our children.
In short, you demand that others respect your prejudices (mine too, in fairness), but flatly refuse to respect theirs. Further, you insist that this demand of respect on one side and refusal of it on the other be a matter of law.
Much the way Sharia Law treats Christians and Jews, no?
I'm not the one giving torture meaning here, GOF. That would be someone like Dick Cheney...
Um, no, it wouldn't. That would be some people like the Department of Justice. I'd think a history teacher would be able to realize that, with a few rare and obvious aberrations, every war has contained instances of what was defined as "torture" during that war that had been defined as "normal interrogation practices" in the most recent preceding war by that same government. That trend can be followed all the way back to the Romans easily. The same in China. It's not so common in Africa and the Middle East, but that's because they're largely still using practices a professional torturer from a thousand years ago would recognize.
...what IS clearly torture as defined by actual interrorgators...
Either you're denying that there is such a thing as an interrogator or lawyer who does not consider it torture, or you're just deciding that opinions you disagree with are automatically invalid and false.
In short, you are claiming that any opinion that disagrees with your own makes one "just like Al-Qaeda."
Like Al Qaeda, the base would like to see a wholly run Christian society similar to Sharia Law.
And to your certain knowledge this is less common than the percentage of Democrat party members who have a positive image of socialism or communism. Many Democrat lawmakers are openly and proudly praising and espousing socialist and/or communist leaders and principles, and openly and proudly working to increase the degree of socialist philosophy embodied in US law. Yet if I said, "The Democrat base would like to see a wholly run communist society similar to Stalinism", you'd dismiss me as a lunatic, wouldn't you?
Why is that?
Al Qaeda has issued similar communiques which reflect a pathological hatred of the West as well as a fervent belief that they are always right.
As have you. And your point is...?
Remember, many on the right don't want scientific theory taught at all. That's why they home school!
Is it? There's no chance that they merely dislike the idea of their child being given a "fisting kit" by Obama's safe schools czar? This probably wouldn't be an issue if education wasn't funded by taxes, in other words by force. As it is, many Christians are required by law to pay for their children to be taught that everything their parents believe is wrong, stupid, and/or evil. In order to get an education for their children that they actually want, they have to pay extra. But regardless, they MUST pay for the "education" that declares them evil. Don't think so? Think for a moment about how the left automatically reacts to any Christian symbolism in any public building anywhere in the US.
Once again, you demand that others respect your philosophical prejudices, but flatly refuse to respect theirs. And you further demand that they be required, at gunpoint if necessary, to financially support yours.
But by stating that they want the government, through a religious belief, to tell a woman what to do with her body, they become JLAQ.
All you're doing here is making a blanket statement that the "abortion is murder" belief is solely religious and has no foundation in fact whatsoever. In short, you are once again declaring that even considering the point debatable makes you "just like Al-Qaeda."
How do they actually know for certain it's life? They really don't. I know I don't. It's above my pay grade.
Okay, so they don't. How do abortion doctors "know" it isn't a human life? They don't. And yet to "sit in judgment....something the Bible expressly forbids" and declare that "it's okay to kill them by the millions, because they might not be human" is enlightened and "pro-choice", in spite of the fact that Tim Tebow thanking his mother for her choice provoked national outrage on the left, while deciding that "it's not okay to kill them, even one or two, because they might be human" is "just like Al-Qaeda."
How do you tie yourself in knots like that without snapping your own spine?
I believe that it is only through him that I can get to heaven.
And that differs from
-no longer think that the ONLY way to get to heaven is through your faith and your faith alone
HOW, exactly?
Both sides use "crusade" and "holy war" language in their propanganda.
You can find plenty of leftists espousing violence as well. The only real difference I see is that the right tends to espouse violence against foreign enemies, while the left espouses violence against domestic ones.
And your point is?
This goes back to the Iran coup discussion...
And of course you end with another "they're just like Al-Qaeda because their opinions disagree with mine." It's more than a little scary that a teacher can't conceive of rational people looking at the same set of data, rationally reaching incompatible conclusions, and neither of them being evil.
"I believe that it is only through him that I can get to heaven."
…and…
"-no longer think that the ONLY way to get to heaven is through your faith and your faith alone"
It's cause Marxaphasia is sooooo "advanced" that he's above even basic logic. (The Law of Non-Contradiction)
Falling like slabs off a melting glacier...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html
"and yet still consider yourself a Christian? Does that work? How?"
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I believe that it is only through him that I can get to heaven. If someone else believes something different, it's not for me to judge. That's God's job."
I just came across an interesting statement by Christopher Hitchens (a noted "New Atheist"):
"I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."
Even though he's obviously not a Christian, at least Hitchens is clear on what the definition of a Christian actually is.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>