1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 2/5/11 09:52 PM, Saen wrote: The morning after pill prevents the egg from fertilizing by layering it with an impenetrable coating. The egg is not destroyed nor a fetus. You have to take the pill by 72 hours after having unprotected sex or it will be ineffective. How people can possibly constitute this as abortion is beyond me.
Sigh, that's not how the pill works. The pill prevents the fertilized egg from implanting.
Even the pill ads say that it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.
Once again, your are ignorant of what you are talking about.
At 2/5/11 09:19 AM, bcdemon wrote: I guess since the 90's it must have been Israels objective to reverse that number. Because in 2006 Arabs only made up about 20% of the population.
This page says that Arabs only made up about 18% of the population in 1997.
Ignoring the fact that he's wrong...
Your page also says that virtually all Arabs in Israel are Muslim. It also says that the number of Muslims has increased every year since 1996. If Israelis are trying to get rid of Muslims, they're not just failing...it doesn't look like they're even making an effort....
Even the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics has the population in 1990 as 875,000 Arab, 3,946,700 Jew, which is around 18%.
Christian and Druze mothers went down. Jewish and Muslim mothers went up. No one disputes that the Muslim population is growing faster than the Jewish population (3.8 to 2.8). Quite frankly, your own sources disprove Jewish attacks on Arab members.
At 2/4/11 12:40 AM, Saen wrote: Read what researches must go through in order to obtain materials, what they are restricted to research, refusal of Federal funding, etc. The politicians who have establishes these restrictions are attempting bringing stem cell research to a halt and eventually establish it as illegal. Yes, it was a bit much to say stem cell research was illegal, just impossible to preform.
Under George W. Satan, the US actively funded embryonic stem cell research on any line before 2004. While stem cell funding has never been illegal, and while the only hoops people have to jump through is to get federal funding, hey I guess hoops exist.
Because having to meet criteria to get free money is the same as being illegal?
Oh, wait...it's not? Damn.
No tumors were observed. The primary concern is pure nonsense, bias, or unfounded fear.
Um, I'm sorry. What?
When doctors says there is a risk of XYZ in taking a drug, it means that XYZ has been observed. No one tries to reduce the risk of something that has never happened. You're ridiculously wrong again.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200 9/05/090506093950.htm
Alright now I'm just going to finish this. When we growing inside the womb as a fetus, what type of cells are forming every organ, every tissue, and every appendage of bodies? EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. If ESC's had a valid concern for being cancerous or containing mutations, nearly all of us would be born with cancer or die in the womb.
Wait, wait, wait.
Before the mockery begins...your argument is that: since children aren't tumors, that taking embryonic stem cells and trying to use them outside of their natural intended purpose can have no side affects? I mean, even ignoring the evidence that proves that ESCs DO cause tumors, your argument is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard. There is just no logical way to come back to this...
I mean, it's like saying that because a kidney doesn't kill us when it's a kidney, that there's no reason we can't replace a heart with a kidney. After all, if kidneys were harmful, they'd kill us! Of course, a kidney can't perform the function of a heart, but that's irrelevant. I am literally speechless at how stupid this argument is.
That should be common sense I'm sorry.
There's nothing common sense about your argument. It's moronic. That you think you made a point should shame your entire family....
At 2/3/11 01:17 PM, Saen wrote: I couldn't possibly stress this further, READ YOUR GOD DAMN SOURCES. Here is a link that reveals the degree of difficulty scientists face in preforming human embryonic stem cell research.
So, you've claimed Human ESC research is illegal (you're wrong). Now that you're insanely wrong, you move the goalposts.
Fail.
Also would like to point this out. "Human embryonic stem cells found in the early stage embryo are believed to have a greater ability to become different types of body cells and have more uses than adult stem cells."-www.policyalmanac.org
Are beliveved. Have not shown any potential. Next?
Wow there, you just stated the fact that tumors were mentioned in the article. The entire section elaborates on tumors caused by EC (embryonic carcinoma (EC) cells). Furthermore, I will reiterate the fact that no where in the article does it state, mention, or suggest that cancer or cancerous tumors are caused by ESC's.
Um, it does. Would we like to reiterate?
The major concern with the possible transplantation of ESC into patients as therapies is their ability to form tumors including teratoma.[15] Safety issues prompted the FDA to place a hold on the first ESC clinical trial (see below), however no tumors were observed.
So the PRIMARY concern is the ability to form tumors. You are wrong. Next?
No, I don't believe that you are a liar, I've came to a conclusion that you must be borderline retarded.
That's a brilliant conslusion from someone who is always wrong. But whatever. If it makes you feel better about yourself I lick windows after Windex has been sprayed on them.
Whatever makes you feel like less of a moron.
At 2/3/11 07:58 AM, zephiran wrote: Out of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories,
There's two very real problems with this:
1. If climate change is happening, that doesn't mean man is involved.
2. Implicit and explicit endorcement are not the same thing.
2 needs more expounding. This is done on both sides. Implicit endorcement arguments usually annoy me because they are inherently dishonest. If people sort of argee...they are TOTALLY on board.
"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions.
Yet, the IPCC conclusio is that the earth will warm .25 degrees in the next century.
Even ingoring truth and logic...if they're right, who cares? A quarter of a degree in a century? Statistically insignificant.
But that kind of temperature rise indicates a trend, does it not? In an unstable climate system temperature fluctuations of around one centigrade might be expected, but the clean upwards-moving trend that can be perfectly well observed for the last century cannot be anything other than a trend.
Except that no one is indicanting a fluctuation of over one centigrade. Hell, most would murder babies to show a 1F incrrease. It simply hasn't happened.
Even if we contribute the .1 degree wave on the past 20 years to the century, it doesn't help the cause.
This is quite possible the worst stdy EVER.
This lumps hundred o factors together and pretends that they are all equal.
Study=fail.
At 1/20/11 04:23 PM, Ravariel wrote: What do you think of these numbers? Do they challenge your perception of the role of government in the prosperity of America? Or do you think there is some other context that may better explain the numbers?
If the growth rates for everyone are positive...who cares?
At 1/23/11 01:32 PM, zephiran wrote: Read Oreskes again.
So, in short, the IPCC agrees. So, no other science matters?
In and of itself that's head hurting...
Sorry, but it bores me whn people object to the very relevant questions people pose by saying "But the IPCC..."
Because I think you are wrong, approaching silly amounts of it in fact. Oreskes' study proves that among the entire scientific field, there isn't a single major institution rejecting Global Warming. It HAS caught flak, but mostly from "concerned" citizens, laymen and pseudo-scientists like Christopher Monckton.
Or among people who point out that the temperature rising less than a degree in a century is irrelevant? Consensus is a neat way to steamroll legitimate questions.
So yea. Fun stuff...
At 1/30/11 05:18 PM, Saen wrote: You seemed to have SEVERELY misread the wikipedia article that you previously referenced to support your statements. No where in the article does it state that ESC's have the ability or have ever been a cause of any type of cancer. Under the "Research history and developments" section, an experiment was mention where "researchers isolated a single type of cell from a teratocarcinoma, a tumor now known to be derived from a germ cell". Simply translated as a single cancerous cell was removed and separated from the tumor (caused by a mutated germ cell (pre-sex cell)), and were cultured. These cancerous cells (embryonic carcinomi) are similar in structure to ESC's, but obviously contained a vast amount of mutagens. This cancerous cells were most likely isolated and cultured, because it was illegal to experiment with ESC's in any way, shape, or form.
It has never been illegal to experiment with ESCs. Moreover, when telling someone that NO mention is made in their article to tumors, it would be helpful to note...
Safety: reducing the risk of teratoma and other cancers as a side effect
There's an entire section of the article related to tumors caused by ESC. Nicely put: you're wrong.
Please read your sources carefully, and be even more cautious when distributing the information you have interpreted to the public.
I read my sources and correctly posted them. But whatever. Calling people liars is fun!
At 1/27/11 04:52 PM, adrshepard wrote: I don't think there is a clear answer. There's only a general mandate that defensive actions should be as limited as necessary to remove the threat. There's no arbitrary standard, so assessing an overreaction is always a case-by-case issue.
The biggest problem I have with the criticism of Israeli strikes is the assumption that there was a neater, more efficient way of taking action but the IDF simply chose not to do it. Like in the Gaza attack, if soldiers come under attack and request fire support, would it be better to wait five or ten minutes to launch a jet to fire a smart bomb or take action immediately with less accurate artillery. Both choices carry risk, and I wouldn't blame the IDF for placing higher priority on its soldiers than on civilians and choosing the artillery. It's what I'd demand from our military.
I don't know if this is a realistic situation or not, but I don't see how anyone could say it isn't without first or second-hand experience.
It's easy to monday morning quarterback (the entire reason we came up with that term). But when people are shooting at you, it's damned scary and you'll do anything to make them stop.
The easiest, and most effective, solution would be to level Gaza. Israel has chosen not to do that because it's brutal and evil. But they have responded. It's not an easy situation. I's messy. Filthy Palestinian terrorists fire missiles from schools and hospitals. Israel then has the choice of responding, and looking like a bad guy, or letting their citizens die. That choice sucks. And that's the way it's designed to be. That no matter what Israel chooses...they lose.
At 1/28/11 10:14 AM, zephiran wrote: Again, what literature do you have to support the statements that A) Adult Stem Cells aren't getting funded, and B) Embryonic Stem Cells cause cancer? It seems like you've got ESCs mixed up with the malignant CSCs.
Adult stem cells are unfunded. They're not sexy I guess. Even the vast majority of articles refer to their limited (though effective) usage. However, we have been experimenting with ESC since the 60s with no sucess...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_s tem_cell
45 years? Where do you get that figure from? According to this we've only had actual access to human ESCs for the last twelve or so years.
No testing starts in human subjects. ESC, as shown above, started in the 60s. Limiting it to humans is dishonest.
At 1/28/11 10:24 PM, Saen wrote: Stem cells don't cure cancer, thats ridiculous. Stem cells have the ability to develop into the cells that surrond them. So in terms of cancer, stem cells may be used to regrow parts of the body damaged by chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery, but not to actually fight or "cure" cancer.
ESC have absolutely no value. They have been tested for decades but have come up with no uses. Indeed, their most known trait is CAUSING cancer by developing into tumors. ESC reps are no different than snake oil salesmen in the wild west.
At 1/26/11 09:54 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:So if someone suggests that kitty litter solves cancer...and it is tried and doesn't solve cancer...it should still be tested to see WHY it doesn't solve cancer?
Adult stem cells (ahich aren't getting funding)? Yes. Embryonic ones...they kinda cause it. Hmmm
Your argument that { using stem cells makes about as much sense as using kitty litter } doesn't hold up since there's actually a relationship between stem cells and tissue regeneration, both in concept and proof of concept. So...
Well, no. The argument was about embryonic stem cells. Which have yielded nothing. Over 45 years.
At 1/27/11 10:59 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i haven't found a clear answer, but this still doesn't appear to be the case. i can't give a full response at the moment, must study, will be back.
There's never been a single case of collateral damage that had led to accords...
Not insignificant.
At 1/17/11 07:43 AM, zephiran wrote: You must be confusing terms. Griffon is talking about research in stem cells as a whole, while you're assuming that what he actually means is stem cell therapy. He's talking about the entire field of study. You're talking about a slightly sensational part of that field. In other words, even if shoving unprogrammed cellies into your cortex didn't cure your Alzheimer, it's still in the interest of ourselves and science to further our understanding of why it didn't/ doesn't work - not to mention if there's any other potential use for stem cells.
So if someone suggests that kitty litter solves cancer...and it is tried and doesn't solve cancer...it should still be tested to see WHY it doesn't solve cancer? Then we should spend millions, IMMEDIATELY, figuring out why newspaper doesn't cure snowfall. Or drought.
Besides, what evidence do you have that stem cell therapy is ineffective to begin with? You haven't presented any studies...
I don't have to. Same reason I don't have to present reasons kitty litter doesn't cure cancer. It just doesn't. Even ESC advocates keep coming back with open hands... "Only 180 million more and we'll get it!" Pass.
At 1/21/11 10:31 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But how does Israel build on this land they own, or owned...when you said they gave it back? If they give the land away, doesn't that nullify ownership? My understanding has always been yes it does. If you give something up but then try to take it back well...even as little kids we understood this was a bad system, hence the term "Indian giver" being said with negative conotation.
"Jews" and "Israel" aren't the same thing. Some Jews refused to give up their property rights. And they are building. This is NOT hard to understand.
But I'm saying can they not with an advanced military handle the situation with less force? I've proposed numerous alternate ideas and instead of anybody debating their merits they say what amounts to "nope". Also I still call false dilemma because my saying "can't you defend yourself in a different way with less collateral damage" is not the same as me saying "can't you end the situation without defending yourself". Those are two different questions to be asking.
You haven't proposed anything. You just keep saying "they should do more!" Why? Why should they spend days arguing strategy while people get bombed, instead of launching an immediate missile. You keep dodging this and calling them mean or evil.
So you didn't read the post that, I believe it was sollinvictus posted, where he provided a link to show you legally were not in the right?
Sollinvictus is incorrect. When one is being fired upon, one has no legal need to defend anyone other than themselves. If you bring a hostage to shoot at me and I kill them, you will be tried, convicted, and executed for their death. It's called felony murder.
On an international level, the Geneva conventions are ONLY constraining when both parties abide. Obviously Sollinvictus didn't understand that the taking of human shields was, in and of itself, a violation of the charter. Oops.
Article 3 states that... taking of hostages;
Hmmm, so how does Geneva talk about responding to a violation during combat? It doesn't. Such a violation is a war crime subject to execution.
Let's also ignore that the deportation of Israeli civilians is a violation of this treaty....
The guy who's running in circles saying "nope" and thinking that's enough isn't me I don't think.
Yea, I think it is. No one has even attempted to show that collaterial damage is illegal, let alone illegal when your enemy causes it. But saying nope sure is fun!
Why couldn't it be? If you know where the rockets are shot from, you know where the terrorists are, why don't you control the scenario in that way? Why don't you, the superior force fight the fight on your terms to minimize damage?
Sorry if this seems blunt, but. It's fucking stupid.
My family and friends matter to me more than strangers. I will protect my loved ones, or my countrymen, over some strangers who are letting monsters shoot rockets from their house. That's how normal people behave to threats.
I guess the rest of the international community who have been asking the same question are "fools" too. I guess I'm just so stupid when I think that an advanced military should be able to kill a bunch of idiots with rockets in a way other then leveling whole neighborhoods...
Yes, for the reasons above, you are clearly a fool.
At 1/17/11 10:15 AM, Elfer wrote: As I recall, after four days and a cursory review of the information, I predicted that an independent review would show no scientific wrongdoing, but perhaps some irregularities with FOIA requests. The next month, such a review was commissioned, and several months after that the results were published, showing that once again, I was correct all along. Of course, the outcome was ignored.
Yawn. What a boring review. Insiders determined insiders didn't do wrong. Statis quo. In fact, it's hard NOT to bank on that.
Since when is there no scientific consensus on global warming? There is no significant body of people in a relevant field that rejects the idea outright. The points of disagreements are in the details, not the big picture.
Um, there's significant rejection of global warming.
There's substantially more evidence than that, and you know it. In any case, this isn't a topic about global warming. In fact, it's mostly a topic about nothing. Perhaps it would be worth starting a new topic on the validity of scientific consensus?
That was the topic to begin with fool.
At 1/18/11 01:10 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:At 1/16/11 04:08 AM, WolvenBear wrote:Not sure how that renders the two statements equivalent. If that's your stance then it directly contradicts that there is (was) a consensus.
Because the two circumstances are identical. It's cool. Not everyone gets it. It takes research and learning and looking into decades of research. No one wants to do that. It's all good.
At 1/17/11 08:45 AM, zephiran wrote: But... There is consensus... Why aren't you listening...
But, there ISN'T consensus. There's significant opposition to GW. And they routinely point to massive lies on the GW side.
So, as I said, no consensus exists. Why aren't you listening?
You've relied on it before, don't act like you suddenly don't think it's significant.
Uh, I haven't. I'd never even looked it up until you mentioned it. While it's possible I linked it in a series of things, I'd never known it's name til now. So either you have me confused with someone else...or you're wrong.
:scientific consensus
"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."
So there is no such thing as scientific consensus. Thanks for linking us to something that admits its not scientific. Kinda like I said.
But... There was no consensus on cooling whatsoever. And temperaturs have been rising steadily since around the fifties and sixties...
The consensus on cooling was identical to the warming of today. A vocal minority predicted it on crappy data, while real scientists said "whoa buddy..."
... You're implying that the American government is suppressing conservative opinions, aren't you?
The government funds certain fields. And defunds them. If you don't believe government funding is political...well, you're an imbecile. There's not a single other person on the planet who doesn't believe government funding shapes scientific views. Which is why hundreds of thousands of books have been written about it on both sides.
Speaking of the devil!
Gotcha. Good one...oh but wait. You have shown you don't know what you're talking about. Damn. Foiled again...
At 1/17/11 06:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But what I have a hard time understanding is how can they "own land" if Israel cedes that land back and says "it isn't ours anymore"?
You seem to have a hard time understanding a lot. But if people want to build on land they owned, they'll do so.
If you are trying to kill me from behind a target, I have no moral obligation NOT to defend myself.False dilemma. I didn't say you couldn't defend yourself.
Again, it's a false dilemma based (I hope anyway) on you misinterpreting the language I used.
It's not a false dilemma at all. It's the real situation. You are blaming Israel for responding to rocket attacks with the same. The targets are civilian areas, in which the Palestinians have placed their rockets. Thus, the dilemma is real.
Legally you did, and it turns out you were wrong. Morally you talked about people's right to life...but apparently in this case only you have a right to life. How can you make "right to life" arguments and condemn terrorists when you seem unwilling to do everything in your power to make sure innocent life is not snuffed? You're disingenuous sir.
Um, legally I'm correct. Sorry, you may run in stupid circles where saying "nope" is enough, but in the real world, it's not enough. You have no moral or legal basis for your claim.
I didn't mean diffuse by stand and argue. That's not the only way to diffuse it. What about going in as a team? Having the squad close by, shooting the terrorist in the head? Seems to me there are ways around this that don't involve shooting through the hostage and letting them die.
That's great, if you have a team. Which wasn't the scenerio.
But hey, you haven't had a point so far. Why start now?
No, that's not the argument at all. The argument is that is Israel responding to these rockets with appropriate force. Are they retaliating in an excessive manner to correct the problem. That's the argument I've always heard anyway, not that lethal force should be off the table, just the amount of lethal force that's being used.
What? So Israel responding to missile strikes with missile strikes is excessive force? Goodness you'e a fool.
At 1/14/11 04:39 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The ideas can be dangerous to other ideas in any mode of conflict i.e. stem cell research vs Christianity.
Ah, yes. Refusing to give something that doesn't work money because some people find it immoral is obviously dangerous. It'd be like if we refused to sprinkle newspaper shavings on the road to reduce slippage would be a bad idea because some cult somewhere worships newspaper clippings.
At 1/12/11 05:37 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: It depends on your definition of left and right, but he was strongly anti-communistic.
He was also strongly anti-capitalism. Communists were a specific party in Germany. So being anti-communist was not disagreeing with their philosophy, but fighting a rival party.
He argued for class collaboration, communism is about removing the classes and surely not through collaboration. I mean, even if you manage to fit some definition of socialism in there in that the means of production were state owned (though it was a dictatorship, so not publicly owned, therefore not socialistic), there's no way you can connect nazism with communism; not even with stalinism and the like (and I know that you are familiar with why stalinism isn't communism as mentioned above, you've been around long enough to know that).
Even most communists regarded Hitler as a hybrid who would bring about Communism in Germany. Given that state control of every aspect of the economy is not terribly different than state ownership, it's not a stretch to compare the two,
So basically, while you MIGHT fit in some skewed version of socialism in nazism, Hitler was clearly anti-communistic in every way. Communism is largely about class war, regardless of race, while Hitler was all about race war, and class war was opposite to his ideas on class collaboration.
There's many problems with this:
1. The attack on the Jews was more an economic than religious or racial one. Jews were seen as outsiders, running in and taking all the German money, Jews were blamed for the treaty of Versallies and were seen as benefitting from German misfortune.
2. Hating the Jews is consistent with socialism, as the Russians were deeply anti-Semetic too.
3. Socialism was hardly "skewed" in Nazism, as Hitler and the Nazis were virulently anti-capitalist and anti-business. Many of Hitler's proposals in his speeches were about improving the plight of the working class against the rich ones.
It's pretty clear that Hitler was a racist socialist, and not a deviation from socialism at all.
At 1/11/11 09:02 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: The congresswoman who was shot was not considered to be a liberal at all, more like a blue dog(Moderate) democrat, so get your facts straight.
And since when did Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh advocate for the assassinations of democratic congressmen? I mean, just because they're ultra-right wingers doesn't mean that they wish death upon a few democrats in Congress.
It's called sarcasm. It mocks the idea to get a point across.
Please tell me this was a failed attempt to be ironic?
At 1/11/11 09:29 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: My problem is Israel may have officially ceded the land, but by building settlements on it they then turn around and claim as sovereign Israeli territory it looks a lot like "Tower and Stockade" to me and makes me really question whether or not Israel really had noble intentions when they ceded that land. Seems obvious they don't want to give it up entirely, so why exactly did they give it away then?
Lots of people were forced out of their homes. That some Israelites wish to build new homes where they own land is hardly comparable to the thousands forced out.
I'm not talking about legality...that should have been obvious. I'm talking about morality, which again, should have been obvious.
If you are trying to kill me from behind a target, I have no moral obligation NOT to defend myself. The fact that someone may die while I am trying to preserve my life is on your shoulders, not mine. Besides, if I stand there and say "ok, kill me", you'll just do it again, seeing that it's successful. By not defending myself, I'll be responsible for you doing it again in the future.
Which you seem to be denying when you talk about legality vs. morality. I'm confused now. You seem to be saying you have no responsibility to the innocent person legally...but then you want to talk about the moral concept of right to live? Which is it? It seems like you want to be able to shoot the innocent person, but still be seen as not as bad as the terrorist. But how are you better if you haven't first done everything you can to diffuse the situation before shooting the terrorist? Or, as Israel seems to like to do, leveling the whole damn building? I'm not talking about, one soldier vs. one terrorist, human shield enters. Obviously in that case somebody dies in that situation, whether it's the terrorist and (most likely his shield) or the soldier alone is understandable. But I'm saying if we're having a military operation, I fail to see why the argument seems to be either "it'll be one soldier, one terroist, face to face, human shield used" or "well we can only just blow the whole building up" like a military force has no other options? Really? You must be joking.
I'm sorry, but this question is stupid. I addressed the question both morally and legally. Why should someone "try to diffuse" a situation of someone shooting at them? Would you really try and stand and argue with someone shooting at you?
Moreover, how do you argue with someone firing rockets at you from miles away? Do you send over an envoy, as they pelt your city with rockets, to say "can we be nice"? A rational person takes out the rocket launcher. The criticism is that Israel responds to lethal attackers with lethal attacks. The lethal attackers DELIBERATELY position themselves in civilian areas, so that when Israel responds, they look bad. It's quite a testiment to Palestinian evil.
Why don't you explain why instead of just ignoring my questions for an ad hominem? I'm serious, explain to me what is wrong with what I said. Answer my question. Do you have a plan for resolving the conflict that isn't genocide? Are you in favor of a genocide? If you are, how can you're genocide be all that much more moral and better then the genocide the terrorists want? Or is it that you just don't have any answers so calling me a retard is easier?
Equating the conflict to genocide is stupid. There is no genocide. Every year the Palestinian population grows. Those who live in Israel get more seats in the government and more voice in the voting box. Comparing Palestine to Rwanda or Germany, or Albania, or a country that has faced genocide shows how moronic the comparison is. Asking someone to "provide a result that isn't genocide" in a situation where there is no genocide is either insanely dishonest or ridiculously foolish. To offer a parallel, let's say I walk into a podiatrist's office. I see a doctor about to remove an ingrown toenail and say "well, gee doc...why not offer a less homicidal solution!" He'd call me a moron (if he was nice), and tell me to get the hell out.
So this is the gauntlet you've thrown down. Either I support Israel being a passive country that lets itself get destroyed, or I am in favor of murdering every last Arab on the continent. If this is seriously your "if-or" situation...you have to realize that it makes you come across as a fool. I either can be a suicidal pacifist (with other people's lives nonetheless) or I can be a bloodthirsty monster who wants Palestinian children to be crushed beneath tanks?
If you think this is a legitimate criticism, you're not much worthy of further debate.
At 1/16/11 04:40 AM, poxpower wrote: Global Cooling:
1% of scientists for, 99% against
"well no consensus!"
Noy what it was at the time.
Global Warming:
99% for
1% against
"well, no consensus!"
Certainly not what it is now.
SO YOU SEE IT'S THE SAME!
Stupid people make stupid comparisons?
At 1/11/11 10:04 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Wolvenbear, do you consider the following two statements to be equivalent...
Given that there is no consensus, yes, I consider the two statements, which, in their historical context, are completely identical, to be equivalent....yes. I consider the two completely equivalent. Now that we're stating to worry about a cooldown again, we will hear in twenty years how global warming was NEVER a consensus but only a weird idea held by a few people. And the people who lived through it will be saying "HEy, wait a minute. That's not right!"
At 1/11/11 11:28 AM, zephiran wrote: It's only a matter of time before WB drags in the Oregon Petition, so I thought I'd go ahead and sink that ship before it even sails into port.
Well, I had no intentions to. But thanks for pointing out your position is shaky at best.
Indeed, Scientific Consensus is SCIENTIFIC, and it is overwhelmingly so.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. Considering that scientists regularly test gravity and air pressure and other things that everyone agree are absolute fact...science is about tests and proof. Not media pressure (consensus),
Carry along now, let us get back to the topic at hand.
Yes. Let's point out how your argument is wrong. Given previous links, your article is wrong in asserting that temperatures have been rising for 50 years, when everyone was worried about global cooling. (Whether or not this was manmade was irrelevant as scientists realized the world was cooling.)
I think there are so few Republican scientists because the conservative christian base prefer to let their kids go to Sunday School instead of getting an actual academical education.
Or actual scientists don't want to toe the government line and say what the government wants them to? Because science is about truth, not governmental decree?
What do I base this on? My own Social Liberal wishful thinking mostly. That, and a funny gut feeling that may or may not be the Tom Yum noodles I had an hour ago.
Ah, basing something on stupidity is beautiful. Great basis to mock those who actually know what they're talking about.
At 1/11/11 09:46 AM, Elfer wrote: No, see, the difference is that there is pretty much an overall consensus opinion in the scientific community about global warming. In the article you linked to, there's a section on what was actually published in journals at the time, and not only does this section show no consensus about global cooling, but early concern about global warming in the long term.
The problem with this is pretty obvious. Virtually anything that causes pollution will release greenhouse gases. Even the worries about aerosols stoke the problem of today. Every aerosol is a greenhouse gas.
Moreover there ISN'T a consensus in global warming, much like there wasn't a consensus in global cooling. Which is odd, because the government is paying people to say there IS global warming.
Global warming may have mixed opinions in the details within the scientific community, but the overall idea is widely accepted. This was not true of global cooling. Global cooling was a brief idea in the scientific community that was turned into a media circus, and is only notable now as an idea that was counter to our current theories about global warming.
Three decades is brief? Ignoring that, the fact that the temperatures have increased something like .2 degrees in 3 decades is proof? Please.
At 1/8/11 12:27 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: http://www.vosizneias.com/69869/2010/11/
29/israel-east-jerusalem-housing-gets-pr eliminary-ok. Yeah, side A is really ceding that land ain't they? How about those settlements also they keep building and reinforcing the sovereignty and legality of?
So, a disputed territory exists. This supposedly means Israel didn't give up land?
Fail.
So you have no responsibility to do everything in your power not to harm those innocent people? Congrats, you suck too if that's the mantra. It's like I say, when you fight fire with fire, everybody gets burned, and by the time your done you'll hopefully enjoy being the last man on the cinder.
No, I don't. If you are shooting at me from behind a target, I have no legal responsibility to the target. It sucks that an innocent person may die...but if you weren't a piece of crap who was hiding behind a human shield while trying to kill me...they wouldn't. People have a right to live after all.
And if you think that the two are equivalent, you're a retard.
I don't say "meh" at all. I am deeply concerned that they'd vote in people that think violence is the answer. I made that clear. But what is there to do then? I mean, are you actually suggesting we just kill them all and have a Palestinian genocide? Then how are we any better then the assholes who want an Israeli genocide?
Yup. Yu're definately a retard.
At 1/11/11 12:52 AM, Memorize wrote: Your words don't mean a whole lot when a young man who was an athiest, regarded the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite readings, and who burned the American flag, shot a Democrat congresswoman and killed a conservative judge, suddenly provokes left wingers to bitch and whine "It's the Republican's fault!"
Well, of course. If a left winger suddenly shoots a liberal congressman...well, he OBVIOUSLY started listening to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh...
At 1/7/11 08:06 AM, AapoJoki wrote: No doubt, but I'm having difficulty understanding as to why on earth you linked to an article in which the very first paragraph proves you wrong?
The article is looking back. By now we look back and say "well, duh. The Earth didn't cool" But that's in retrospect. Scientists were talking about global cooling for years. Then the science caught up and they let it drop. Now the trend is global warming! And it's petering out too...
When reviewing history, it helps to look beyond the sentence that says "it didn't happen" when trying to understand scientists' predictions at the time.
At 1/7/11 10:50 AM, Elfer wrote: "This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."
Well, heck buddy! That could be global warming today! It has mixed support, but popular support!
Kinda what I was pointing out, but ok....
Missing the point is always fun...
At 1/8/11 11:27 PM, Ravariel wrote: You need to read this thread. Then, once you miss the point, you can go stick your head back in the sand and yell at democrats some more.
Holy crap!?! It's only Democrats?!?!?
I though Bush and Guilliani and Arnold and McCain and Romney and Huckabee and every politician who mattered on the right was pushing it too!
Man, stupid paying attention. I thought that things that were true were true. And now you're telling me I'm wrong on things I'm right on because we differ on political leanings. What a drag!
At 12/28/10 11:25 AM, Elfer wrote: Sorry, when was there a scientific consensus on global cooling?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cool ing
Kinda hurts the lies today.
At 12/23/10 03:04 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which isn't what's happening since side A as satanbrain in fact just linked to is now saying "fuck it, we're going to do something we know pisses side B off...not to mention pursuing policies that marginalize and limit them". It's in no way as simple as you're trying to paint it.
It really is as simple as I'm painting it. Side A is ceding land and begging for peace and Side B is teaching their children to put bombs on and kill side A. It's like me punching you in the face 72 times...then you finally defend yourself. When the cop arrives, I claim we're equally guilty because we both threw punches.
Not quite kosher eh?
You act like Israel is somehow blameless and don't have violations of human rights and other crap leveled at them as well as Palestine. I'm not condoning terrorism or any of that obviously. But it's not as simple as "Israel good, Palestine bad"
It really is that simple. If you're trying to kill me, I don't give a damn what the laws say. I will defend myself against you. You shoot rockets at me, I will return fire. If innocents get killedbecause ou put them in harms way...you suck.
My thought would be to a "how do we get the people to expel these violent factions"? Because a big part of the problem to me is that the Palestinians either WANT or feel they NEED these violent factions.
I...I....
If the south voted a KKK president in, we'd call them racist. If the Palestinians vote in Hamas...we say "meh".
