Biogeosocialists...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:
Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

If GretaGroupie were still here, what would SHE say about this?

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
I imagine she would want us to respect the alligator's right to self identify which class of vertebrates they choose to belong to.

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
Reptile, amphibian, or trans-class vertebrate.

Let the ALLIGATORS decide what they are identified as.

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

Life would be dandy if every retard that voted for Biden murdered all of their kids, as eventually everyone would be a republican.

So sure I call that healthcare

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

Life would be dandy if every retard that voted for Biden murdered all of their kids, as eventually everyone would be a republican.

So sure I call that healthcare

I just call this more bigotry on your part.

There are many children who do not vote the same way that their parents vote, and there are many people who don't vote for the same party-line candidates over the course of their whole lives.

Im a BM wrote:
sealover isn't coming back - exceeded term limits.

The sealover library has 800 posts.

Im a BM wrote:
Already too unwieldy, he exceeded his term limits.

By the time the poop man reaches his term limits, there will be far fewer posts than that to sort through.

Imagine how hard it would be to dig for something useful in someone's library if they have to sort through 4000, 12,000, even 18,000 untitled posts.

Im a BM wrote:
But I can save them the effort. There is nothing useful to be found there.

It's all about the latest insult fest. Only the most recent posts are intended to be seen by anyone, right?

Did they ever present an argument of such value that it would be of interest to anyone outside of the latest insult fest?

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

Life would be dandy if every retard that voted for Biden murdered all of their kids, as eventually everyone would be a republican.

So sure I call that healthcare

I just call this more bigotry on your part.

There are many children who do not vote the same way that their parents vote, and there are many people who don't vote for the same party-line candidates over the course of their whole lives.

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

Life would be dandy if every retard that voted for Biden murdered all of their kids, as eventually everyone would be a republican.

So sure I call that healthcare

I just call this more bigotry on your part.

There are many children who do not vote the same way that their parents vote, and there are many people who don't vote for the same party-line candidates over the course of their whole lives.

But DNA determines what we are so the question becomes, does the USA need more Walmart looters? So yes I call killing small democrats healthcare for the USA

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Again as I already said polar bears are amphibious mammals, not amphibians.

Do they pay you much to do this for a living?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Still can't get yer head wrapped around English, can ya?

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

You still can't wrap your head around the fact that amphibian and amphibious are not the same word. It's ok, we understand that your mother kept you in the closet for all those years. She had no right to do that so that now all you can do is peep for the NSA

Semantics fallacy. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. I can't help it if you don't understand English.

Well there you go again being stupid

Being rational is not being stupid.

Are you also going to tell me that "up is down", "wrong is right", "men are women", "women are only definable by unnamed biologists", "guns kill people", "murder is healthcare", and on and on and on??

Life would be dandy if every retard that voted for Biden murdered all of their kids, as eventually everyone would be a republican.

So sure I call that healthcare

I just call this more bigotry on your part.

There are many children who do not vote the same way that their parents vote, and there are many people who don't vote for the same party-line candidates over the course of their whole lives.

But DNA determines what we are so the question becomes, does the USA need more Walmart looters? So yes I call killing small democrats healthcare for the USA

DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

I remember over many decades hearing about how "instinct" is set in stone, genetically heritable traits that require no learning or thought, and cannot change.

Genotype determines phenotype, but that is not set in stone.

Phenotypic plasticity of genotypes evolved very early in the process.

Most, if not all animals with a central nervous system display phenotypic plasticity of behavior.

They learn and change their behavior accordingly. Except for the stupid ones.

"Man has no instincts" said my high school psychology teacher.

He then made it clear that humans are the only animals that can think for themselves.

I challenged him with some examples of how dogs think and learn, and how humans display uncontrollable animal instincts in their behavior.

He conceded that maybe certain "reflexes" among humans are instinctive, and maybe some animals can display more than just "reflexes."

Twins separated at birth choosing wives of the same name?

That's a wild one, but you have to consider the possibility of coincidence.

Coincidence versus common cause can be a paradox.

I used to think my choices were all about free will, then I remember all the stupid mistakes I made because I was horny.

Those salmon are so desperate to get the big O that they'll go on a suicide mission.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Swan wrote:
Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

I remember over many decades hearing about how "instinct" is set in stone, genetically heritable traits that require no learning or thought, and cannot change.

Genotype determines phenotype, but that is not set in stone.

Phenotypic plasticity of genotypes evolved very early in the process.

Most, if not all animals with a central nervous system display phenotypic plasticity of behavior.

They learn and change their behavior accordingly. Except for the stupid ones.

"Man has no instincts" said my high school psychology teacher.

He then made it clear that humans are the only animals that can think for themselves.

I challenged him with some examples of how dogs think and learn, and how humans display uncontrollable animal instincts in their behavior.

He conceded that maybe certain "reflexes" among humans are instinctive, and maybe some animals can display more than just "reflexes."

Twins separated at birth choosing wives of the same name?

That's a wild one, but you have to consider the possibility of coincidence.

Coincidence versus common cause can be a paradox.

I used to think my choices were all about free will, then I remember all the stupid mistakes I made because I was horny.

Those salmon are so desperate to get the big O that they'll go on a suicide mission.

We are chemical computers running chemical codes,

Swan wrote:
when the chemical testosterone subsides so do the chemical effects that it creates in the body subside, then you say, why did I do that when I was younger.

Swan wrote:
Because you were running a code that you had no freedom to decide as the chemical is actually your reality,

Swan wrote:
take away the test and insert estrogen and you change into pink panties. Free will does not exist in any form, now we are directed to leave Earth for other places as happened here at one time

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

I remember over many decades hearing about how "instinct" is set in stone, genetically heritable traits that require no learning or thought, and cannot change.

Genotype determines phenotype, but that is not set in stone.

Phenotypic plasticity of genotypes evolved very early in the process.

Most, if not all animals with a central nervous system display phenotypic plasticity of behavior.

They learn and change their behavior accordingly. Except for the stupid ones.

"Man has no instincts" said my high school psychology teacher.

He then made it clear that humans are the only animals that can think for themselves.

I challenged him with some examples of how dogs think and learn, and how humans display uncontrollable animal instincts in their behavior.

He conceded that maybe certain "reflexes" among humans are instinctive, and maybe some animals can display more than just "reflexes."

Twins separated at birth choosing wives of the same name?

That's a wild one, but you have to consider the possibility of coincidence.

Coincidence versus common cause can be a paradox.

I used to think my choices were all about free will, then I remember all the stupid mistakes I made because I was horny.

Those salmon are so desperate to get the big O that they'll go on a suicide mission.

We are chemical computers running chemical codes,

No, we are not. Our cells are, but we are more than just a hunk of cells.

Swan wrote:
when the chemical testosterone subsides so do the chemical effects that it creates in the body subside, then you say, why did I do that when I was younger.

Inexperience, usually.

Swan wrote:
Because you were running a code that you had no freedom to decide as the chemical is actually your reality,

You always have a freedom to decide. You do NOT have freedom from the consequences of that choice.

Swan wrote:
take away the test and insert estrogen and you change into pink panties. Free will does not exist in any form, now we are directed to leave Earth for other places as happened here at one time

Contrivance. What aboutism.

Swan wrote:
All your thoughts are created by DNA, freedom of choice is a thought created by as said DNA and there is nothing that you can do about this fact

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
All your thoughts are created by DNA, freedom of choice is a thought created by as said DNA and there is nothing that you can do about this fact

You already chanted this. Argument by repetition fallacy.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

I remember over many decades hearing about how "instinct" is set in stone, genetically heritable traits that require no learning or thought, and cannot change.

Genotype determines phenotype, but that is not set in stone.

Phenotypic plasticity of genotypes evolved very early in the process.

Most, if not all animals with a central nervous system display phenotypic plasticity of behavior.

They learn and change their behavior accordingly. Except for the stupid ones.

"Man has no instincts" said my high school psychology teacher.

He then made it clear that humans are the only animals that can think for themselves.

I challenged him with some examples of how dogs think and learn, and how humans display uncontrollable animal instincts in their behavior.

He conceded that maybe certain "reflexes" among humans are instinctive, and maybe some animals can display more than just "reflexes."

Twins separated at birth choosing wives of the same name?

That's a wild one, but you have to consider the possibility of coincidence.

Coincidence versus common cause can be a paradox.

I used to think my choices were all about free will, then I remember all the stupid mistakes I made because I was horny.

Those salmon are so desperate to get the big O that they'll go on a suicide mission.

We are chemical computers running chemical codes,

No, we are not. Our cells are, but we are more than just a hunk of cells.

Swan wrote:
when the chemical testosterone subsides so do the chemical effects that it creates in the body subside, then you say, why did I do that when I was younger.

Inexperience, usually.

Swan wrote:
Because you were running a code that you had no freedom to decide as the chemical is actually your reality,

You always have a freedom to decide. You do NOT have freedom from the consequences of that choice.

Swan wrote:
take away the test and insert estrogen and you change into pink panties. Free will does not exist in any form, now we are directed to leave Earth for other places as happened here at one time

Contrivance. What aboutism.

All your thoughts are created by DNA, freedom of choice is a thought created by as said DNA and there is nothing that you can do about this fact

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

I remember over many decades hearing about how "instinct" is set in stone, genetically heritable traits that require no learning or thought, and cannot change.

Genotype determines phenotype, but that is not set in stone.

Phenotypic plasticity of genotypes evolved very early in the process.

Most, if not all animals with a central nervous system display phenotypic plasticity of behavior.

They learn and change their behavior accordingly. Except for the stupid ones.

"Man has no instincts" said my high school psychology teacher.

He then made it clear that humans are the only animals that can think for themselves.

I challenged him with some examples of how dogs think and learn, and how humans display uncontrollable animal instincts in their behavior.

He conceded that maybe certain "reflexes" among humans are instinctive, and maybe some animals can display more than just "reflexes."

Twins separated at birth choosing wives of the same name?

That's a wild one, but you have to consider the possibility of coincidence.

Coincidence versus common cause can be a paradox.

I used to think my choices were all about free will, then I remember all the stupid mistakes I made because I was horny.

Those salmon are so desperate to get the big O that they'll go on a suicide mission.

We are chemical computers running chemical codes,

No, we are not. Our cells are, but we are more than just a hunk of cells.

Swan wrote:
when the chemical testosterone subsides so do the chemical effects that it creates in the body subside, then you say, why did I do that when I was younger.

Inexperience, usually.

Swan wrote:
Because you were running a code that you had no freedom to decide as the chemical is actually your reality,

You always have a freedom to decide. You do NOT have freedom from the consequences of that choice.

Swan wrote:
take away the test and insert estrogen and you change into pink panties. Free will does not exist in any form, now we are directed to leave Earth for other places as happened here at one time

Contrivance. What aboutism.

All your thoughts are created by DNA, freedom of choice is a thought created by as said DNA and there is nothing that you can do about this fact

E.O. Wilson - "Sociobiology"

Richard Dawkins - "The Selfish Gene"

Two groundbreaking books were published by two geniuses in the mid 70s.

If a suicide mission is required to ensure the gene's replication, provide the machine with sufficient motivation to do it.

Maybe those salmon are delighted to be accomplishing their life's dream finally.

Maybe they believe the choices they make are their own free will.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
All your thoughts are created by DNA, freedom of choice is a thought created by as said DNA and there is nothing that you can do about this fact

You already chanted this. Argument by repetition fallacy.

You are free to determine whatever is fallacious to you,

Swan wrote:
however no other person on planet Earth shares your ignorant views,

Swan wrote:
so you shall die with your ignorance as you live with it.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
DNA does not determine what we are.

Denial of freedom of choice.

DNA determines everything, including the choices that all animals make. Unless one uses a mind not created and controlled by DNA

No, it doesn't. DNA only determines what we look like. It does not take away freedom of choice.

Choice is a mental decision that happens in the mind created by DNA, so you only have the freedom to choose what your programming determines.

Some scientists claim that new discoveries have proved free will is an illusion. Nonsense, says Julian Baggini

Julian Baggini
Thu 19 Mar 2015 02.00 EDT
124
Whenever you read stories about identical twins separated at birth, they tend to follow the template set by the most remarkable of them all: the "two Jim's". James Springer and James Lewis were separated as one-month-olds, adopted by different families and reunited at age 39. When University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard met them in 1979, he found, as a Washington Post article put it, both had "married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been maths, their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day." The similarities were uncanny. A great deal of who they would turn out to be appears to have been written in their genes.

I remember over many decades hearing about how "instinct" is set in stone, genetically heritable traits that require no learning or thought, and cannot change.

Genotype determines phenotype, but that is not set in stone.

Phenotypic plasticity of genotypes evolved very early in the process.

Most, if not all animals with a central nervous system display phenotypic plasticity of behavior.

They learn and change their behavior accordingly. Except for the stupid ones.

"Man has no instincts" said my high school psychology teacher.

He then made it clear that humans are the only animals that can think for themselves.

I challenged him with some examples of how dogs think and learn, and how humans display uncontrollable animal instincts in their behavior.

He conceded that maybe certain "reflexes" among humans are instinctive, and maybe some animals can display more than just "reflexes."

Twins separated at birth choosing wives of the same name?

That's a wild one, but you have to consider the possibility of coincidence.

Coincidence versus common cause can be a paradox.

I used to think my choices were all about free will, then I remember all the stupid mistakes I made because I was horny.

Those salmon are so desperate to get the big O that they'll go on a suicide mission.

We are chemical computers running chemical codes,

No, we are not. Our cells are, but we are more than just a hunk of cells.

Swan wrote:
when the chemical testosterone subsides so do the chemical effects that it creates in the body subside, then you say, why did I do that when I was younger.

Inexperience, usually.

Swan wrote:
Because you were running a code that you had no freedom to decide as the chemical is actually your reality,

You always have a freedom to decide. You do NOT have freedom from the consequences of that choice.

Swan wrote:
take away the test and insert estrogen and you change into pink panties. Free will does not exist in any form, now we are directed to leave Earth for other places as happened here at one time

Contrivance. What aboutism.

All your thoughts are created by DNA, freedom of choice is a thought created by as said DNA and there is nothing that you can do about this fact

E.O. Wilson - "Sociobiology"

Richard Dawkins - "The Selfish Gene"

Two groundbreaking books were published by two geniuses in the mid 70s.

If a suicide mission is required to ensure the gene's replication, provide the machine with sufficient motivation to do it.

Maybe those salmon are delighted to be accomplishing their life's dream finally.

Maybe they believe the choices they make are their own free will.

IBdaMann wrote:

squeal over's sock wrote:Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?

I do not.

Do you really believe that the ocean's pH has been accurately measured millions of times?

Do you really believe that humanity can have a non-negligible effect on the ocean's alkalinity?

squeal over's sock wrote:Your cult turns out to be smaller than I thought.

I bet. Zero is the correct number.

squeal over's sock wrote:No me habia molestado con leer la porqueria de conversacion entre locos cuando calcule cinco seguidores creyentes.

Mejor decir "a leer" en vez de "con leer."

Es que no sabes sumar. La cifra es cero. Deja de inventar mierda.

squeal over's sock wrote:Where did sweet little Greta G go, anyway? Doesn't she like you, either?

Nobody likes me, except for you. You're my best friend and I know that you'll always back me unconditionally. Otherwise, nobody likes a know-it-all, which is why I have no friends besides you.

.

Im a BM wrote:
This was posted on May 5, 2022, at 1:45, in case anyone doubts that this is the original, unaltered text.

Question: "Do you really believe that alligators are amphibians?"

Answer: "I do not."

And this would have been a fine place to end it.

But then there were more than 100 posts, literally, insisting that alligators really ARE amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
It is pointless to try to discuss science with a scientifically illiterate troll.

Im a BM wrote:
A whole lot of bandwidth gets wasted on stupid word games.

Im a BM wrote:
In this case, an INCREDIBLY stupid word game.

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Is "septane" a real word?

"Septane" is the measure of stability of the gases in a septic tank.

Looks like the hole creepy clowns climb out of...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity and pH of pure water, with or without atmospheric CO2.

Pure water has no CO2 in it. Water isn't atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Truly "pure" water contains no carbonic acid.

Rain water is not pure. It contains dissolved carbon dioxide, a tiny fraction of which is in the form of carbonic acid.

So? It also contains any dust that was washed out of the air.

Im a BM wrote:
Or should I say "carbolic" acid like the local genius calls it?

Carbolic acid is not carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
In the 1980s, atmospheric CO2 was lower.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Im a BM wrote:
"Pure" rain water, i.e. without any anthropogenic sulfuric acid or nitric acid, used to have pH about 5.65

It is not possible to measure the global pH of rain water.

Im a BM wrote:
Atmospheric CO2 has risen since then, and natural rain pH has gone lower.

Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"Degassed" pure water has pH 7.

No such thing. Water isn't a gas (unless you boil it).

Im a BM wrote:
The only oxyanion it contains, among the long list of oxyanions that CAN contribute acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), is hydroxide (OH-).

Buzzword fallacies.

Im a BM wrote:
At pH 7, hydroxide is present at 0.0000001 molar concentration.

Hydroxide is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The alkalinity of pure water is 0.0000001 moles per liter.

Unit error. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
The alkalinity of natural rain water is still 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), PLUS the extremely small amount of carbonic acid that dissociates into bicarbonate, or even deprotonates twice to make carbonate.

Not chemicals. Unit error. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
The pH is less than 5.6.

It is not possible to measure the global pH of rainwater.

Im a BM wrote:
The list of oxyanions that can supply acid neutralizing capacity is very long.

Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Bicarbonate is the biggest player.

No such chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Hydroxide is virtually negligible as a contributor to the alkalinity in sea water.

No such chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Have fun in your echo chamber.

You are describing yourself (and your socks).

Im a BM wrote:
Question:

"Or should I say 'carbolic' acid like the local genius calls it?"

Answer:

"Carbolic acid is not carbonic acid."

For YEARS Parrot Boy consistently said "carbolic acid" instead of carbonic acid.

Didn't EVER call it by its proper name, perhaps until this post.

At least in THIS post, Into the Night acknowledges that carbolic acid and carbonic acid are actually NOT the same thing.

The absurdity of him calling himself a "chemist"...

Is it the conscious deception of others, or just unwitting SELF deception?

Is it an extreme case of ignorant arrogance, or just delusional?

Of course, none of the OTHER trolls noticed the consistent error, year after year.

None of the other trolls knew enough basic, introductory chemistry to instantly notice that carbonic acid was being incorrectly identified as a VERY DIFFERENT kind of acid called "carbolic acid".

FUN FACT - Carbolic Acid (aka phenol, phenolic acid, benzenol) is an ORGANIC acid composed of ORGANIC CARBON.

Carbolic acid consists of a six-carbon aromatic benzene ring with one hydroxyl group. C6H5OH.

A hydroxyl group makes an organic compound an alcohol. In the case of AROMATIC alcohols (a hydroxyl group on a benzene ring) they have the special name "phenols".

Carbolic acid is the very simplest phenol of them all.

Polyphenols are MUCH larger, with multiple benzene rings, often with more than one hydroxyl group per benzene ring.

Carbolic acid is an organic acid. Carbonic acid is an INORGANIC (mineral) acid.

Carbolic acid molecules contain six atoms of organic carbon.

Carbonic acid molecules contain one atom of inorganic carbon.

Anyway, someone with the simplest education in chemistry should have noticed when Into the Night was writing "carbolic acid", over and over, that it was the wrong term.

Year after year, he kept writing "carbolic acid", and none of the other trolls were scientifically literate enough to notice the glaring error.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Alkalinity and pH of pure water, with or without atmospheric CO2.

Pure water has no CO2 in it. Water isn't atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Truly "pure" water contains no carbonic acid.

Rain water is not pure. It contains dissolved carbon dioxide, a tiny fraction of which is in the form of carbonic acid.

So? It also contains any dust that was washed out of the air.

Im a BM wrote:
Or should I say "carbolic" acid like the local genius calls it?

Carbolic acid is not carbonic acid.

Im a BM wrote:
In the 1980s, atmospheric CO2 was lower.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Im a BM wrote:
"Pure" rain water, i.e. without any anthropogenic sulfuric acid or nitric acid, used to have pH about 5.65

It is not possible to measure the global pH of rain water.

Im a BM wrote:
Atmospheric CO2 has risen since then, and natural rain pH has gone lower.

Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
"Degassed" pure water has pH 7.

No such thing. Water isn't a gas (unless you boil it).

Im a BM wrote:
The only oxyanion it contains, among the long list of oxyanions that CAN contribute acid neutralizing capacity (alkalinity), is hydroxide (OH-).

Buzzword fallacies.

Im a BM wrote:
At pH 7, hydroxide is present at 0.0000001 molar concentration.

Hydroxide is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
The alkalinity of pure water is 0.0000001 moles per liter.

Unit error. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
The alkalinity of natural rain water is still 0.0000001 moles per liter acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), PLUS the extremely small amount of carbonic acid that dissociates into bicarbonate, or even deprotonates twice to make carbonate.

Not chemicals. Unit error. Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
The pH is less than 5.6.

It is not possible to measure the global pH of rainwater.

Im a BM wrote:
The list of oxyanions that can supply acid neutralizing capacity is very long.

Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Bicarbonate is the biggest player.

No such chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Hydroxide is virtually negligible as a contributor to the alkalinity in sea water.

No such chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Have fun in your echo chamber.

You are describing yourself (and your socks).

Im a BM wrote:
FUN FACT - Carbolic Acid (aka phenol, phenolic acid, benzenol) is an ORGANIC acid composed of ORGANIC CARBON.

Im a BM wrote:
Year after year, he kept writing "carbolic acid", and none of the other trolls were scientifically literate enough to notice the glaring error.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't need no nanny-state...

Why is it that we are all adults, but some would try to take the role of a 'responsible' adult, treating the general population as ignorant children? We all only have a few decades of life, and should be free to live by our own choices. Think and believe as we please. We didn't build our great societies, living in fear of the unknown, or unknowable. I could care what Dr. Doom, and his cult followers believe, or what flavor Kool-Aid works best with Warfarin. That's their choice, their lives to squander as they please.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't need no nanny-state...

Why is it that we are all adults, but some would try to take the role of a 'responsible' adult, treating the general population as ignorant children? We all only have a few decades of life, and should be free to live by our own choices. Think and believe as we please. We didn't build our great societies, living in fear of the unknown, or unknowable. I could care what Dr. Doom, and his cult followers believe, or what flavor Kool-Aid works best with Warfarin. That's their choice, their lives to squander as they please.

Im a BM wrote:
Nor was it clear to me what the title, "Biogeosocialists" had to do with any alleged need for a nanny-state.

Im a BM wrote:
I am a biogeochemist, and I am not aware that the term "biogeosocialist" is one that is ever used among educated people to discuss anything.

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey, you were right to call "bullshit" on the dominant troll's blind religious faith in magic petroleum.

Im a BM wrote:
Thermodenial is manifest in refusal to believe in "woke" thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
There is no such thing as "higher forms of energy". At least, not in the context of how deposits of fossil fuel formed from the corpses of ancient organisms.

Im a BM wrote:
Kilogram per kilogram, coal contains more calories that can be released by combustion than the ancient wetland peat that the coal formed from.

Im a BM wrote:
Does that mean that energy was created out of nothing?

Im a BM wrote:
No, it just means that the wetland peat lost a lot of weight during its transformation into coal.

Im a BM wrote:
It also lost chemical energy during the metamorphosis, as hydrogen and oxygen attached to carbon atoms were cleaved off and joined together to form H2O.

Im a BM wrote:
Wetland peat is basically pure organic matter with a low ratio of carbon to oxygen, and a high ratio of carbon to hydrogen. So all its hydrogen gets used up, consumed to form water with the oxygen, during transformation to coal.

Im a BM wrote:
Coal is nearly pure carbon, with all the hydrogen and oxygen squeezed and baked out of it, to form water, during metamorphosis.

Im a BM wrote:
But coal is NOT a "higher form of energy" than the wetland peat it formed from. Coal actually contains LESS chemical energy, mole per mole, compared to the peat it formed from. But it also contains a whole lot less oxygen and hydrogen,

Im a BM wrote:
Harvey, you were right to be irritated by IBdaMann's insults that you are "gullible" for not believing in magic petroleum.

Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, HE is the gullible one for believing in such fairy tales.

Im a BM wrote:
That scientifically illiterate moron insists that coal and petroleum did NOT form from organic carbon previously contained in living organisms. What an idiot!

HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't need no nanny-state...

Why is it that we are all adults, but some would try to take the role of a 'responsible' adult, treating the general population as ignorant children? We all only have a few decades of life, and should be free to live by our own choices. Think and believe as we please. We didn't build our great societies, living in fear of the unknown, or unknowable. I could care what Dr. Doom, and his cult followers believe, or what flavor Kool-Aid works best with Warfarin. That's their choice, their lives to squander as they please.

Im a BM wrote: HarveyH55, I never understood why you thought this thread was relevant to "climate debate".

Im a BM wrote: What the pHuck is a "biogeosocialist"?

Im a BM wrote: The question itself buys into the notion and validates the idea that there even IS "such a thing as" a "biogeosocialist".

Im a BM wrote: I am a biogeochemist,

Im a BM wrote: and I am not aware that the term

Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as "higher forms of energy".

Im a BM wrote: Kilogram per kilogram, coal contains more calories that can be released by combustion than the ancient wetland peat that the coal formed from.

Im a BM wrote:Coal is nearly pure carbon,

Im a BM wrote: But coal is NOT a "higher form of energy"

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: HarveyH55, I never understood why you thought this thread was relevant to "climate debate".

Climate Change is a Marxist religion. You've been told this many times but you seem to be too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: What the pHuck is a "biogeosocialist"?

It's the superset of "biogeochemist."

Im a BM wrote: The question itself buys into the notion and validates the idea that there even IS "such a thing as" a "biogeosocialist".

Im a BM wrote: I am a biogeochemist,

Im a BM wrote: and I am not aware that the term

Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as "higher forms of energy".

Im a BM wrote: Kilogram per kilogram, coal contains more calories that can be released by combustion than the ancient wetland peat that the coal formed from.

Im a BM wrote:Coal is nearly pure carbon,

Im a BM wrote: But coal is NOT a "higher form of energy"

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: HarveyH55, I never understood why you thought this thread was relevant to "climate debate".

Climate Change is a Marxist religion. You've been told this many times but you seem to be too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: What the pHuck is a "biogeosocialist"?

It's the superset of "biogeochemist."

Im a BM wrote: The question itself buys into the notion and validates the idea that there even IS "such a thing as" a "biogeosocialist".

Im a BM wrote: I am a biogeochemist,

Im a BM wrote: and I am not aware that the term

Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as "higher forms of energy".

Im a BM wrote: Kilogram per kilogram, coal contains more calories that can be released by combustion than the ancient wetland peat that the coal formed from.

Im a BM wrote:Coal is nearly pure carbon,

Im a BM wrote: But coal is NOT a "higher form of energy"

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: HarveyH55, I never understood why you thought this thread was relevant to "climate debate".

Climate Change is a Marxist religion. You've been told this many times but you seem to be too stupid to learn.

Im a BM wrote: What the pHuck is a "biogeosocialist"?

It's the superset of "biogeochemist."

Im a BM wrote: The question itself buys into the notion and validates the idea that there even IS "such a thing as" a "biogeosocialist".

Im a BM wrote: I am a biogeochemist,

Im a BM wrote: and I am not aware that the term

Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as "higher forms of energy".

Im a BM wrote: Kilogram per kilogram, coal contains more calories that can be released by combustion than the ancient wetland peat that the coal formed from.

Im a BM wrote:Coal is nearly pure carbon,

Im a BM wrote: But coal is NOT a "higher form of energy"

sealover wrote:
Google Inquiry: "Is there such a thing as a 'higher form of energy'?"

Google seems to think this is a nonsense term.

Google say:"In physics, there is no scientific category called a 'higher form of energy'.."

Yeah, we already knew that anyway.

Let's try another Google inquiry: "In chemistry, is there such a thing as a 'neutral covalent oxide'?"

What do you know! There really IS, but it doesn't include CO2.

Google say: "..They are compounds formed between non-metals and oxygen that do not react with acids or bases to form salts."

sealover wrote:
That wouldn't include CO2, would it? Doesn't a NaOH-based CO2 "trap" pull CO2 right out of the air to turn it into the SALT known as sodium carbonate?

sealover wrote:
Because "carbonic acid gas" can adsorb directly on to the hydroxide of even a dry base, such as sodium hydroxide.

Doesn't "carbonic acid gas" get pulled right out of the atmosphere in dry form during the "curing" of concrete. For decades the dry calcium hydroxide in the concrete will continue to take dry CO2 right out of the air to become calcium carbonate.

sealover wrote:

Sodium hydroxide CO2 "trap"

CO2 + 2NaOH = Na2CO3 + H2O

Concrete "hot lime" curing via atmospheric CO2

CO2 + Ca(OH)2 = CaCO3 + H2O

Because: acid + base = salt

sealover wrote:
Whatever IBdaMann thinks the label should be, CO2 certainly does what an acid would do upon contact with an alkaline hydroxide.

I'll ask Google one more question:
"Is CO2 a 'neutral covalent oxide'?"

Google say: "No, CO2 is not a neutral oxide, it is an acidic covalent oxide."

I'll admit that I was wrong to claim that there is no such thing as this obscure chemistry term "neutral covalent oxide". I certainly understood what it implied, but I had never actually seen those three words together in that combination as a designated vocabulary term. It seems like a weird way to say it, but once the term gets established, we have to use it if we want others to know what we are talking about.

But CO2 is acidic by ANY vocabulary, even the "covalent oxide" spin.

sealover wrote:
Now, I encourage IBdaMann to go back and read what I actually wrote about the composition of coal, and why it is NOT a hydrocarbon. Right here, didn't I say coal is "nearly pure carbon"? NOT the same as calling it a "hydrocarbon".

sealover wrote:
IBdaMann, you are a most disgusting individual. You won't learn a damn thing from any of what I post here. But others who are willing to understand science might get something of value from it.