3,004 Forum Posts by "Peter-II"
At 1/12/07 05:00 AM, Imperator wrote: That's just the opposite for me. The fact that there has been such a huge rush on this tells me it's a fad. I'm skeptical of jumping on the ever-filling bandwagon here.....
Absolutely.
[rant]I honestly despise the global warming fad. Have any Brits here seen those Sky News adverts where people send in videos of themselves taking measures against global warming? Totally fucking pathetic. Oh wow, little girl, you'll actually be walking to school tomorrow? Well call the shitting marching band, and I hope your guilt is overridden! I mean jesus, as if that's anything to be proud of. And what about the little kid that turned off all the lights in his living room before going to sleep? What, does that imply he didn't do that before? What a stupid little jackass, as if the main problem that would be contributing to is global warming...what about the fucking electricity bills, you little cock? GAGH!!! It's like a hole of self-righteousness.
I'm not going to change any of my habits. Not one. Especially since I already walk / cycle everywhere and use as little electricity as possible anyway, and have been doing so for years, before everyone got cocked up about global warming. And heh, the people who send in these kind of videos probably don't know about the process of global warming or the effects it has in the first place...like you said, they're just jumping on the bandwagons like the sheepish, twatty little arses they are...[/end rant]
There are perfectly good reasons why I believe that global warming is taking place. As I implied earlier, I've known about it for years, and since then I've been looking at the facts myself and have come to the conclusion that it is a real phenomena rather than just media sensaionalism. Evidences:
-Global temperature rise [1 2]
-Disappearance of glaciers [3 4]
-Sea level rise [5]
-Increase in extreme weather [6
-Increased evaporation [7
I think my point is made.
In a sense, I'm glad about people jumping on the "global warming bandwagon" (even if it chiefly because recently people have been talking about economic effects rather than environmental ones...) because it means people will make more of an effort to prevent it from happening...however, what pisses me off is that many of these people are doing it out of blindly shameless self-righteousness rather than actual caring about the environmental, economic and health-related effects of it.
"Oh look at me, I care about the environment and all the beautiful little animals! I'm such a unique hippy!" Go to hell.
There's also the fact that fucking walking to school rather than being driven isn't going to do shit...even if everyone did that, it wouldn't have a great effect. It is more the responsibility of the corporations than the general public, as a) the money to help prevent it is in their hands, and b) particularly with secondary labour, they're also the main contributers to the greenhouse gas emissions.
At 1/11/07 10:59 AM, TheMason wrote: I was expecting the results to be counter-intuitative in that a higher percentage of Civilians would have a problem with gays in the military. However, I was wrong and the poll proves conventional wisdom correct that a higher rate of those who have never served (compared to those who are or have) have no problem with gays in the military.
As you said, it was a small sample. With small samples, statistics fluctuate a lot.
Also to be taken into consideration is the fact that you only asked NG members. There may be correlations with ages, typical political leanings and the like.
Your argument assumes that free will is a result of physical neuroscientific actions and reactions, which is something I agree with.
However, if you're assuming everything is physical, then you're essentially implying that a personal god doesn't exist in the first place, since that would also mean that nothing metaphysical exists in the universe. Meaning there's no "God feeling" or any of that stuff.
At 1/8/07 12:16 PM, qygibo wrote:At 1/8/07 08:53 AM, cold-as-hell wrote:If you dont believe me then look it up yourself, I dont give a fuck if you take my word for it.The shut the fuck up, troll. If you're too goddamned fucking lazy to pull your own sources out, do not expect other people to hunt down your argument and argue it for you. Lazy fucker.
Hey hey hey. It had to be said, but I seem to remember you being more well-mannered.
At 1/8/07 02:11 PM, JMHX wrote: Kids, I am going to begin a school for such purposes as the education of the 15-year-olds.
Lesson 1: You must ALWAYS remember that you don't know ANYTHING about politics. That goes for all of you. There are no exceptions.
Gotta admit, I don't know anything about politics either. Ah well.
At 1/8/07 08:53 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: If you dont believe me then look it up yourself, I dont give a fuck if you take my word for it.
You recommended Google.
Notice how many of the sources contradict each other. You can't just say "Google it" and expect to not have to provide a reliable source of your own.
At 1/7/07 08:06 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Allah was also a arabic pagan moon god.
And thats a fact.
That's false. Just because Jack Chick says it doesn't make it true.
At 1/7/07 04:17 PM, shohaib wrote: i only posted this, so people wouldn't get confused
Bullshit. Who would have been confused in the first place?
At 1/7/07 03:44 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Alla h is just a NAME for that one god. Christians conveniently don't give God a name other than "God" .
They should call God "Yahweh", though.
When I grow up, I want to be just like JMHX.
At 1/6/07 05:18 PM, Reconstruct wrote: Heh, I'm going to go with the other "half" of the scientific community that says it's a natural cycle, which so far, has been. And I would much rather take their word than the word of those who've been saying "it's over" for the past 40 years.
Yes, it's a natural cycle; and yes, we're making it worse.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibi tgcc/images/historical03.gif
There is no "other half" of the scientific community which denies that humans are contributing to global warming. Actual geologists that think that are in the absolute minority. The main people who do that are just regular sceptics which don't work in fields relevant to geology.
At 1/5/07 03:56 PM, BanditByte wrote: Reading "Fifteen years are like that, but I'm not" from other fifteen year olds is priceless.
You're right there. I don't know of one fifteen-year-old who wouldn't make that argument.
I've met people of that age who are confident that if they were given total power over the earth, they alone would be able to sort out all of its problems.
I kid you not.
At 1/5/07 03:25 AM, afliXion wrote: It seems to me the reason you are saying this is because you think the Bible is out-dated and lost its authority.
Well he would have a point there. Out of curiosity, do you believe that sodomites should be put to death?
But quite the contrary the Bible stands up to science (and is true science)
Not really...if we're taking the Bible word for word, then the moon gives off light (Genesis 1:16) and in fact, the sun and moon are not what makes day light and night dark at all (Genesis 1:5). And hell, this is just from me looking at the very first page of my trusty KJV.
At 1/4/07 07:28 PM, JMHX wrote: 7. We should leave Iraq because soldiers are dying, and that is unacceptable in a war.
I lol'd hard at that one.
At 1/4/07 06:22 PM, Peter-II wrote: For instance, during major ice ages the average global temperature was only about 5-10 degrees Celsius, for instance, yet during them the earth was completely covered in snow and ice.
Waitwaitwait, that was a typo. I meant that it was only about 5-10 degrees Celsius different to how it is today.
At 1/4/07 04:37 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: GLobal Warming desribes a 0.6 degrees Celsius rise in temperature over the past century.
Hahaha, oh dear...the average global temperature doesn't really give an accurate picture of the whole of global warming. There are regional variations. For instance, during major ice ages the average global temperature was only about 5-10 degrees Celsius, for instance, yet during them the earth was completely covered in snow and ice.
No melting ice-caps. No doomsday. No "warmest year ever"
The icecaps have already started melting, and 2006 I believe was the warmest year since sometime in the 17th century. Hardly anyone is claiming that global warming will be the cause of a doomsday, though if it continues at the rate it's doing now, there will definitely some changes to people's lifestyles.
Considering the earth has had warmer temperatures way before (and multiple times) in the past, care to explain how this is caused by people?
Incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_reco rd_of_the_past_1000_years
At 1/4/07 05:51 PM, flamingninja777 wrote: Very good speech. everyone else is being stupid because there used to whites not being allowed to be proud of their nation. I for one am proud of anyone who can post this!
What the fuck are you talking about...
America for instance is full of patriots.
The video quality isn't great. Nothing really to rave about.
At 1/4/07 11:16 AM, candymancan wrote:
Hi, dre-man.
At 1/3/07 09:59 AM, ElementalSoldier wrote: You guys will all burn in hell.
A convincing argument, ElementalSoldier, I assure you...
At 1/1/07 08:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: But isn't living in areas that are prone to enivromental disasters our own doing?
Not if say, you were born there, and can't afford to get out.
Hahaha oh wow.
I love it when majorities bitch.
At 12/28/06 02:29 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I wasn't aware that I said all.
I'm pretty damm sure that I said most.
Nope.
"Why should he have to remove the pain, misery and failrue in the world, when all of these things are on our own cause and effect"
The party I was invited to was cancelled at the last minute, and everybody else was busy.
So I spent New Year's playing on Morrowind. Man, that's sad.
At 12/29/06 08:40 PM, Proteas wrote:At 12/29/06 08:30 PM, Peter-II wrote: First of all, no-one thinks that science is the be-all-end-all answer to life's mysteries. That's complete bullshit.So you've been hijacking this thread and refuting every apposing viewpoint thus far... why?
Mostly boredom. It is 1:30 AM here after all. I don't see your problem though, you can't expect to make a post in the politics forum and have it not responded to.
At 12/29/06 08:20 PM, Proteas wrote: You know what cracks me up?
The hypocracy of those who claim science to be the be-all-end-all answer to all of life's mysteries. They denounce the Bible because of it's innacuracies and improbabilities, or how it's used merely as a tool to control the unwashed masses... but they turn a blind eye to the fact the scientific theories have to be rewritten every few years or so to accomodate "new evidence," or scrapped entirerly.
First of all, no-one thinks that science is the be-all-end-all answer to life's mysteries. That's complete bullshit.
Second of all, science is the exploration of the unknown, and given that scientists are human and use tools made by humans, of course they are going to make errors. Scientific theories have to be rewritten every few years because they are being corrected. As more evidence acumulates, the theories inevitably become more valid. However, in reality it's only the small details which are being refined - it's not like vast differences are being made to scientific theories every day, so that no-one can have the slightest idea of what is correct.
The people who can't be trusted are those who are "always right".
Also, theories are very rarely completely overturned, apart from in the case of severe anomalies or poor equipment. You're simply incorrect on that point.
At 12/29/06 08:09 PM, Dre-Man wrote:
Ah I see, because the big bang is "just a theory" and you have an absolute belief about the stages at which the earth was created means your inverifiable young-earth creationism is more valid than Science which has been validated countless times by empirical observation by people who know far more about the field than you do.
Ignoring the fact, of course, that your young-earth creationism not only has absolutely no evidence in support of it whatsoever, but also goes against scientific principles such as Occam's razor, not to mention the fact that it's totally useless as it gives us no insight into any aspects of the natural world.
