How much money is Hillary trying to steal from the middle class about global warming?

jwoodward48 wrote:
None, because AGW is happening, and it is a dire threat to humanity. Taxes are not theft.

jwoodward48 wrote: None, because AGW is happening, and it is a dire threat to humanity. Taxes are not theft.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Taxes are not theft. As a citizen of the United States, and having representation via election, you have certain responsibilities, such as following the laws and paying taxes.

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, I don't think you understand the concept of religion. It appears that you define religion as "anything not derivable from scientific laws and models or observation." Is this true?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Taxes are not theft. As a citizen of the United States, and having representation via election, you have certain responsibilities, such as following the laws and paying taxes.

If taxes are used to 'punish' or to redistribute wealth, it is theft.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, I don't think you understand the concept of religion. It appears that you define religion as "anything not derivable from scientific laws and models or observation." Is this true?

IBDaMann is right. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. Imposing a tax on Outsiders, or quashing their opinion, is NOT within the authority of the federal government.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Taxes are not theft. As a citizen of the United States, and having representation via election, you have certain responsibilities, such as following the laws and paying taxes.

If taxes are used to 'punish' or to redistribute wealth, it is theft.

Higher taxes for rich people is not for the purpose of punishing them. I don't think that most rich individuals are that immoral, but they are benefiting from a system that is inherently flawed and unethical. Reducing the benefits that they gain, however ethically, in order to provide for everybody, is not theft

jwoodward48 wrote:

. I think that a decent socialistic step would be to give everybody enough money to buy decent meals (as in, you aren't eating at McDonald's every day because it's cheaper), and then to increase taxes to account for this - the poor would be helped, the middle class would be marginally affected, and the rich would get a chunk of their incredibly large income taken away. What's wrong with that?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Furthermore, this means that the poor will be able to divert their income to things other than immediate survival, which tends to help the economy - either they, say, get an education, in which case they would get a better-paying job, and then they wouldn't need help anymore, or they would put it into the economy in other ways, which would probably be good for the economy, or they would save it, which helps them out of poverty, allowing them to get better-paying jobs, in which case they would contribute to the welfare instead of benefit from it.

jwoodward48 wrote:
If you're going to argue that my points are meaningless because I am idiotic (which I'm not, but you don't really get that), Einstein was a socialist. I know that's a fallacy. It's a fallacy counterpoint to a fallacy.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, I don't think you understand the concept of religion. It appears that you define religion as "anything not derivable from scientific laws and models or observation." Is this true?

IBDaMann is right. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. Imposing a tax on Outsiders, or quashing their opinion, is NOT within the authority of the federal government.

How is it a religion? Specify. And your opinion is not being quashed by the government. "I'm feeling oppressed!" is your version of "I'm feeling triggered!" apparently.

jwoodward48 wrote:
(Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," by the way.)

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Taxes are not theft. As a citizen of the United States, and having representation via election, you have certain responsibilities, such as following the laws and paying taxes.

If taxes are used to 'punish' or to redistribute wealth, it is theft.

Higher taxes for rich people is not for the purpose of punishing them. I don't think that most rich individuals are that immoral, but they are benefiting from a system that is inherently flawed and unethical. Reducing the benefits that they gain, however ethically, in order to provide for everybody, is not theft

That is redistribution of wealth. It is theft.

jwoodward48 wrote:

. I think that a decent socialistic step would be to give everybody enough money to buy decent meals (as in, you aren't eating at McDonald's every day because it's cheaper), and then to increase taxes to account for this - the poor would be helped, the middle class would be marginally affected, and the rich would get a chunk of their incredibly large income taken away. What's wrong with that?

It is theft.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Furthermore, this means that the poor will be able to divert their income to things other than immediate survival, which tends to help the economy - either they, say, get an education, in which case they would get a better-paying job, and then they wouldn't need help anymore, or they would put it into the economy in other ways, which would probably be good for the economy, or they would save it, which helps them out of poverty, allowing them to get better-paying jobs, in which case they would contribute to the welfare instead of benefit from it.

I am not going to pay for someone elses college. Neither is college required to get a good paying job.

jwoodward48 wrote:
If you're going to argue that my points are meaningless because I am idiotic (which I'm not, but you don't really get that), Einstein was a socialist. I know that's a fallacy. It's a fallacy counterpoint to a fallacy.

No, I've been arguing your points because they violate physics, contain mathematical errors, contain logical errors, errors of history, etc. I say your an illiterate because you are.

Into the Night wrote: The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus. It is all powerful, able to override any science or physics. Through him, light itself takes on strange behavior. He can create energy out of nothing. If is through Him that the very fabric of the Universe is changed, including all of the mathematics describing it. It is through him the Holy Gas is given power. It is through him the message that the end of the world is nigh is given.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB, I don't think you understand the concept of religion. It appears that you define religion as "anything not derivable from scientific laws and models or observation." Is this true?

IBDaMann is right. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. Imposing a tax on Outsiders, or quashing their opinion, is NOT within the authority of the federal government.

How is it a religion? Specify. And your opinion is not being quashed by the government. "I'm feeling oppressed!" is your version of "I'm feeling triggered!" apparently.

Okay, I'll explain to you briefly AGAIN.

All religions are based on an initial circular argument. The other word for this circular argument is 'faith'.

Most religions have an object of worship. Some deity, or some concept.

Religions often treat any outsider of that religion with scorn because they do not 'know the Truth'.

Religions build upon the initial circular argument a whole collection of conclusions, each used to support the initial circular argument.

Religions like Christianity at least admit to the initial circular argument calling it what it is. Faith.

Religions like the Church of Global Warming don't admit the initial circular argument, but instead spend their time trying to redefine words and physics to make the universe match their doctrine.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus.

It is all powerful, able to override any science or physics.

Through him, light itself takes on strange behavior.

He can create energy out of nothing.

If is through Him that the very fabric of the Universe is changed, including all of the mathematics describing it.

It is through him the Holy Gas is given power.

It is through him the message that the end of the world is nigh is given.

Part of the godhead is the Holy Gas, capable of revealing all of men's sins.

Destroyer of worlds.

It is through the power of the Holy Gas that seas rise and fall...

...storms and hurricanes...

...wars and rumors of wars...

...famines...

...drought..

...and even flooding.

All for the glory of the Great God Consensus and His message.

jwoodward48 wrote:
(Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," by the way.)

This is untrue, yet the Church of Global Warming has its Gods.

In 1890, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason expressed religion in traditional theistic terms: "[T]he term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will."

In the 1960s, the Court expanded its view of religion. In its 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court stated that the establishment clause prevents government from aiding "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." In a footnote, the Court clarified that this principle extended to "religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God ... Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Taxes are not theft. As a citizen of the United States, and having representation via election, you have certain responsibilities, such as following the laws and paying taxes.

If taxes are used to 'punish' or to redistribute wealth, it is theft.

Higher taxes for rich people is not for the purpose of punishing them. I don't think that most rich individuals are that immoral, but they are benefiting from a system that is inherently flawed and unethical. Reducing the benefits that they gain, however ethically, in order to provide for everybody, is not theft

That is redistribution of wealth. It is theft.

Theft: "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

Part of the role of government is to protect its citizens; taxation in order to do so is permitted. Unless you can show that welfare is unconstitutional

jwoodward48 wrote:
Think about it this way: you already pay for grades K through 12. Is that theft?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Why do you say that I am illiterate, if not to support your argument? It's either abuse (which would further your argument) or you just like hurting people. If I were you, I'd get help.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus. It is all powerful, able to override any science or physics. Through him, light itself takes on strange behavior. He can create energy out of nothing. If is through Him that the very fabric of the Universe is changed, including all of the mathematics describing it. It is through him the Holy Gas is given power. It is through him the message that the end of the world is nigh is given.

I'm sorry but this is an outright lie. Read the sacred websites and visit the holy links.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great Goddess "Climate" who does all the above. The Consensus deity is just a powerful minion gives Climate many of her powers. There really is no debate anymore. The issue is settled.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Okay, I'll explain to you briefly AGAIN.

All religions are based on an initial circular argument. The other word for this circular argument is 'faith'.

A circular argument usually is a bit more veiled than "it is because it is," but this is a fairly good representation of belief.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Most religions have an object of worship. Some deity, or some concept.

With the inclusion of "concept", "force", and "group of deities", I can't imagine a single religion that wouldn't fall under this description. A truly accurate and concise statement.

Religions often treat any outsider of that religion with scorn because they do not 'know the Truth'.

This is not always so, but you qualified with "often," so okay.

Religions build upon the initial circular argument a whole collection of conclusions, each used to support the initial circular argument.

Not always used to support the initial circular argument: sometimes they just branch off of the circle, but sometimes they go back onto it. But overall true.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Religions like Christianity at least admit to the initial circular argument calling it what it is. Faith.

Yes. That was fun. We could agree.

Religions like the Church of Global Warming don't admit the initial circular argument, but instead spend their time trying to redefine words and physics to make the universe match their doctrine.

Aaaaaaaaand here we go with the portrayals.

Saying "this word also has another meaning, this meaning is what I was using" is not the same as saying "I have a new meaning for this word, let us use it exclusively." The former is what I have sometimes done. The latter is redefinition. Besides, what really matters is the concepts that words are only identifiers for. A theory by any other name would be as scientific.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus.

No...? For one, where does scientific consensus come from if not science?

jwoodward48 wrote:

We non-deniers agree that consensus is a decent measure of how accepted a science is, and a useful way of measuring roughly how certain a theory is.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It does not in itself make a theory true, but rather tends to correlate with the confidence in a theory, which in turn tells laymen that, assuming that there is no conspiracy by the scientists, AGW is pretty likely.

jwoodward48 wrote:

It is all powerful, able to override any science or physics.

It must follow science.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Through him, light itself takes on strange behavior.

Like absorbing, or even - gasp - emitting downward!

He can create energy out of nothing.

The GHE redirects energy by absorbing and emitting downward.

If is through Him that the very fabric of the Universe is changed, including all of the mathematics describing it.

AGW relies on the same mathematical framework as every other theory.

jwoodward48 wrote:

It is through him the Holy Gas is given power.

The GHE describes how gases are capable of absorbing radiation. What heresy!

It is through him the message that the end of the world is nigh is given.

Ah, this is true for once.

Part of the godhead is the Holy Gas, capable of revealing all of men's sins.

More like "the result of industrialization, now haunting us. And for some reason we keep making more if it."

Destroyer of worlds.

Not destroyer, but certainly ravager.

It is through the power of the Holy Gas that seas rise and fall...

As has been observed.

...storms and hurricanes...

Ditto.

...wars and rumors of wars...

I don't get how AGW could cause wars. That's certainly a stretch. Probably made by the ever-present idiots. Don't blame us for their alarmist "AGW will cause all the wars and kill all the people AND EVERYTHING WILL EXPLODE" nonsense.

...famines...

Because plants can't work as well when it's hot. Also droughts.

...drought..

Because storms are depositing their water sooner, meaning that less is distributed to drier places.

...and even flooding.

Ditto, meaning that more is deposited upon wetter places.

All for the glory of the Great God Consensus and His message.

All because of AGW.

jwoodward48 wrote:
(Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," by the way.)

This is untrue, yet the Church of Global Warming has its Gods.

That is one definition. But I suppose that the legal definition would be more important if you want to argue the "freedom of religion" clause.

jwoodward48 wrote:

In 1890, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason expressed religion in traditional theistic terms: "[T]he term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will."

In the 1960s, the Court expanded its view of religion. In its 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court stated that the establishment clause prevents government from aiding "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." In a footnote, the Court clarified that this principle extended to "religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God ... Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

We do not argue that we are created by any supposed Climate God. You could argue that it is similar to the extended religions in the Torcaso v Watkins ruling, I guess?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Okay, I'll explain to you briefly AGAIN.

All religions are based on an initial circular argument. The other word for this circular argument is 'faith'.

A circular argument usually is a bit more veiled than "it is because it is," but this is a fairly good representation of belief.

People try to hide the circular argument, but it always comes down to it is because it is. A better word than 'belief' is 'faith'. Belief is a different thing that may or may not involve faith.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Most religions have an object of worship. Some deity, or some concept.

With the inclusion of "concept", "force", and "group of deities", I can't imagine a single religion that wouldn't fall under this description. A truly accurate and concise statement.

Religions often treat any outsider of that religion with scorn because they do not 'know the Truth'.

This is not always so, but you qualified with "often," so okay.

Religions build upon the initial circular argument a whole collection of conclusions, each used to support the initial circular argument.

Not always used to support the initial circular argument: sometimes they just branch off of the circle, but sometimes they go back onto it. But overall true.

Branching off of the circle is not possible without leaving that religion.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Religions like Christianity at least admit to the initial circular argument calling it what it is. Faith.

Yes. That was fun. We could agree.

Religions like the Church of Global Warming don't admit the initial circular argument, but instead spend their time trying to redefine words and physics to make the universe match their doctrine.

Aaaaaaaaand here we go with the portrayals.

Saying "this word also has another meaning, this meaning is what I was using" is not the same as saying "I have a new meaning for this word, let us use it exclusively." The former is what I have sometimes done. The latter is redefinition. Besides, what really matters is the concepts that words are only identifiers for. A theory by any other name would be as scientific.

The Church of Global Warming worships the Great God Consensus.

No...? For one, where does scientific consensus come from if not science?

It doesn't. Science does not use consensus. Scientific consensus is a myth. Consensus is a political or religious term only.

The Church of Global Warming begins with the circular argument. It worships concepts. It never leaves the circular argument. The argument never becomes more than circular. It is a religion.

jwoodward48 wrote:

We non-deniers agree that consensus is a decent measure of how accepted a science is, and a useful way of measuring roughly how certain a theory is.

Theories are not proven or legitimized in this way in science. Consensus has no place in science.

jwoodward48 wrote:
It does not in itself make a theory true, but rather tends to correlate with the confidence in a theory, which in turn tells laymen that, assuming that there is no conspiracy by the scientists, AGW is pretty likely.

This is a religious statement. All Hail the Great God Consensus!

jwoodward48 wrote:

It is all powerful, able to override any science or physics.

It must follow science.

No. Neither do you.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Through him, light itself takes on strange behavior.

Like absorbing, or even - gasp - emitting downward!

He can create energy out of nothing.

The GHE redirects energy by absorbing and emitting downward.

If is through Him that the very fabric of the Universe is changed, including all of the mathematics describing it.

AGW relies on the same mathematical framework as every other theory.

Once altered by changing the fabric of the Universe, true.

jwoodward48 wrote:

It is through him the Holy Gas is given power.

The GHE describes how gases are capable of absorbing radiation. What heresy!

It is through him the message that the end of the world is nigh is given.

Ah, this is true for once.

Part of the godhead is the Holy Gas, capable of revealing all of men's sins.

More like "the result of industrialization, now haunting us. And for some reason we keep making more if it."

Destroyer of worlds.

Not destroyer, but certainly ravager.

It is through the power of the Holy Gas that seas rise and fall...

As has been observed.

...storms and hurricanes...

Ditto.

...wars and rumors of wars...

I don't get how AGW could cause wars. That's certainly a stretch. Probably made by the ever-present idiots. Don't blame us for their alarmist "AGW will cause all the wars and kill all the people AND EVERYTHING WILL EXPLODE" nonsense.

...famines...

Because plants can't work as well when it's hot. Also droughts.

...drought..

Because storms are depositing their water sooner, meaning that less is distributed to drier places.

...and even flooding.

Ditto, meaning that more is deposited upon wetter places.

All for the glory of the Great God Consensus and His message.

All because of AGW.

jwoodward48 wrote:
(Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," by the way.)

This is untrue, yet the Church of Global Warming has its Gods.

That is one definition. But I suppose that the legal definition would be more important if you want to argue the "freedom of religion" clause.

Forcing me to pay for your religion is not freedom of religion.

jwoodward48 wrote:

In 1890, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason expressed religion in traditional theistic terms: "[T]he term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will."

In the 1960s, the Court expanded its view of religion. In its 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court stated that the establishment clause prevents government from aiding "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." In a footnote, the Court clarified that this principle extended to "religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God ... Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

We do not argue that we are created by any supposed Climate God. You could argue that it is similar to the extended religions in the Torcaso v Watkins ruling, I guess?

And I have. Q.E.D.

jwoodward48 wrote:
...remaining post deleted...
Having argued something =/= having demonstrated something. Besides, you have made no comparison between climate science and Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, etc., which are the extensions specified in the Torcaso vs Watkins ruling, and referenced in my post.

jwoodward48 wrote:Having argued something =/= having demonstrated something.

jwoodward48 wrote: Besides, you have made no comparison between climate science and Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, etc., which are the extensions specified in the Torcaso vs Watkins ruling, and referenced in my post.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
...remaining post deleted...
Having argued something =/= having demonstrated something. Besides, you have made no comparison between climate science and Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, etc., which are the extensions specified in the Torcaso vs Watkins ruling, and referenced in my post.

Your entire post is again just arguments of the Stone.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Having argued something =/= having demonstrated something.

Thank you! I was wondering when you were going to "get it." You have become the king of asserting that you "have shown" things that you have merely claimed.

I presume that is going to stop, yes?

jwoodward48 wrote: Besides, you have made no comparison between climate science and Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, etc., which are the extensions specified in the Torcaso vs Watkins ruling, and referenced in my post.

I plan to stick with my isomorphic relationship between Christianity and Global Warming.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Having argued something =/= having demonstrated something.

Thank you! I was wondering when you were going to "get it." You have become the king of asserting that you "have shown" things that you have merely claimed.

I presume that is going to stop, yes?

I was referring to how Into said that he had argued something, and then said QED. He was missing a crucial part of the proof process - actually proving.

jwoodward48 wrote: Besides, you have made no comparison between climate science and Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, etc., which are the extensions specified in the Torcaso vs Watkins ruling, and referenced in my post.

IBdaMann wrote:I plan to stick with my isomorphic relationship between Christianity and Global Warming.

Except that that doesn't work, because climate science does not specify a creator deity. And according to the law, that's part of the definition of a religion.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Having argued something =/= having demonstrated something.

Thank you! I was wondering when you were going to "get it." You have become the king of asserting that you "have shown" things that you have merely claimed.

I presume that is going to stop, yes?

I was referring to how Into said that he had argued something, and then said QED. He was missing a crucial part of the proof process - actually proving.

So you are going to continue to claim that you have "shown" things that you have merely claimed?

jwoodward48 wrote: Besides, you have made no comparison between climate science and Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, etc., which are the extensions specified in the Torcaso vs Watkins ruling, and referenced in my post.

IBdaMann wrote:I plan to stick with my isomorphic relationship between Christianity and Global Warming.

Except that that doesn't work, because climate science does not specify a creator deity. And according to the law, that's part of the definition of a religion.

Unfortunately, I am not restricted to anyone's definition of religion.

Your WACKY religion is still a religion, whether it is recognized by the state or not.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Unfortunately, if you want to present a legal argument against AGW-treatment policies, you are restricted to the legal definition of "religion".

jwoodward48 wrote:Unfortunately, if you want to present a legal argument against AGW-treatment policies, you are restricted to the legal definition of "religion".

jwoodward48 wrote:
As the Supreme Court has ruled, religion involves faith in a Creator. It specified other religions that did not satisfy this requirement as being special-cased in - if you can show that climate science is similar to Buddhism etc., it can still fit in.

spot wrote: A good law is reasonable I don't think anyone reasonable would claim "believe in climate change" is a religion.

spot wrote: You seem to have convinced yourself now you need to go and convince the wider populous. I think you will be laughed at.

IBdaMann wrote:Did you have a particular petty insult that avoids science that you would like to hurl?

spot wrote: You spent all that time typing out all that crap in response to a flippent post by me, you need a hobby mate.

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Did you have a particular petty insult that avoids science that you would like to hurl?

spot wrote: You spent all that time typing out all that crap in response to a flippent post by me, you need a hobby mate.

I was expecting a slightly better science-avoiding petty insult but this one will do.

Thanks.


.

spot wrote:sorry I didn't read your screed before I replied, anything in it different this time?

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:sorry I didn't read your screed before I replied, anything in it different this time?

Your reply looks pretty worthless, devoid of useful information and very non-value-added ... perfectly normal for you. I don't see any problem.


.