Is "Climate" Concern Genuine?

jwoodward48 wrote: Blatant ad hominem, and also a variant of appeal to hypocrisy. Dismissed.

Those damn commie liberals want to kill all the babies, but then they claim to want to "prevent lives" by "working against climate change." Why should we listen to them? They're just hypocrites.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I read your post. It went like this:

Those damn commie liberals want to kill all the babies, but then they claim to want to "prevent lives" by "working against climate change." Why should we listen to them? They're just hypocrites.

Here's a hint - that's irrelevant to a discussion of climate change. If Hitler himself said that climate change was happening, the authorship of the argument would still be irrelevant. You are attacking "warmists" and then somehow thinking that your attacks have any meaning, any effect, any point. They don't.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I read your post. It went like this:

Those damn commie liberals want to kill all the babies, but then they claim to want to "prevent lives" by "working against climate change." Why should we listen to them? They're just hypocrites.

Here's a hint - that's irrelevant to a discussion of climate change. If Hitler himself said that climate change was happening, the authorship of the argument would still be irrelevant. You are attacking "warmists" and then somehow thinking that your attacks have any meaning, any effect, any point. They don't.

I don't think you get this whole analysis thing, and you seem to not understand that hypocrisy is always worthy of note.

If you, as a warmizombie, claim to be concerned about future generations, yet you advocate the killing of future generations right now, ostensibly for nothing more than a woman's convenience, then your hypocrisy should be laid out there for public scrutiny.

Let's run through it:

Do you believe that a woman's convenience trumps a living human's life?

Do you believe that we should act to save future generations from the "climate change" threat?

Go on, let's lay it all out there. It is all completely relevant, despite your desperate attempts to sweep it under the rug, away from any and all cross-examination.

If your "concern" for future generations is actually a sham, that has a direct bearing on your arguments for catastrophic Global Warming.

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't think you get this whole argument thing, and you seem to not understand that hypocrisy of the author doesn't impact the validity of an argument.

jwoodward48 wrote: No.

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you believe that a single human cell with the potential for human life is in fact a human life?

jwoodward48 wrote: And if you're so concerned about human life, how about universal health care etc.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, it's irrelevant. You seriously don't get this "logic" thing.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't think you get this whole argument thing, and you seem to not understand that hypocrisy of the author doesn't impact the validity of an argument.

I completely get this whole argument thing. Hypocrisy is completely relevant when it is the topic of the thread. Maybe someone needs to explain "context" to you.

jwoodward48 wrote: No.

Apparently you don't know the difference between "yes" and "no."

Do you believe that a woman who willingly has sex and gets herself pregnant should just be able to get an abortion if she wishes to have an abortion?

So did you actually mean "yes"?

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you believe that a single human cell with the potential for human life is in fact a human life?

a. Is it a living zygote?
b. Of human DNA and not DNA of some other species?

If the answer is "yes" to both then it is a living human. Biology answers that question pretty easily.

jwoodward48 wrote: And if you're so concerned about human life, how about universal health care etc.

Why would I want to make medical care unavailable to everyone?

Health care that is unavailable, albeit free, looks exactly the same as health care that is too expensive.

Do you know why the world isn't flocking to Cuba for free health care?

Do you know why so many Canadians come to the US for their health care?

Are you, in any way, knowledgeable on this subject?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, it's irrelevant. You seriously don't get this "logic" thing.

Bring it on, baby, bring it on! You against me in a logic showdown? That would be fun ... for a brief while, then it would get old very quickly. You aren't very good at the logic thing, but it would be fun handing your hiney at first.

So we're left with warmizombie claims about catastrophic "climate change" not being genuine.

This, in turn, illuminates the reality that warmizombies are dishonestly pushing a Marxist agenda and actually care nothing about the catastrophic "threats" of doom and gloom they preach.

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed that you were a rational being who only created threads to discuss relevant topics. I won't make that mistake again.

jwoodward48 wrote: So we are clear that in the case of a. rape, as well as b. potential death of the mother and other medical reasons, abortion is ethically permissible?

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, I think that the government should not control women's wombs.

jwoodward48 wrote: Let's spin this some more, shall we? Or can we get to actual discussion?

jwoodward48 wrote: I meant "no". You specified a living human. A single fertilized egg is not a living human being.

jwoodward48 wrote: A zygote is just an egg with twice as much genetic information.

jwoodward48 wrote: It contains all of the DNA necessary to make a baby.

jwoodward48 wrote: It is not a human being.

jwoodward48 wrote: That requires a consciousness.

jwoodward48 wrote: If someone is in a vegetable state and is completely incapable of thought or emotion, then they are effectively dead.

jwoodward48 wrote: Because Cuba is awful? Their health care is actually rather good.

jwoodward48 wrote: Erm, no? Drugs actually cost less in Canada, ferex.

jwoodward48 wrote: Warmizombies are evil! Therefore nothing they say matters!

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed that you were a rational being who only created threads to discuss relevant topics. I won't make that mistake again.

Thank you. I'll consider your king tipped.

jwoodward48 wrote: So we are clear that in the case of a. rape, as well as b. potential death of the mother and other medical reasons, abortion is ethically permissible?

I am only considering the vast bulk of the cases in which the abortion is elected to avoid future inconvenience. I don't consider cases of rape (where the woman did not willingly have sex) or cases of probable death (not a matter of avoiding future inconvenience).

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, I think that the government should not control women's wombs.

Awesome weasel wording for your advocacy of killing living humans who have committed no crimes for no other reason that personal convenience. Thank you.

jwoodward48 wrote: Let's spin this some more, shall we? Or can we get to actual discussion?

I can see that you are reverting to your leftist, knee-jerk reaction of desperately attempting to control the discussion when you back yourself into a corner. We are in the throes of the actual discussion. The topic is your hypocrisy.

You and your warmizombie brethren pretend to be concerned about future generations when it is obvious that you are happy for future generations to be summarily executed.

This strikes at the heart of warmizombie fear-mongering which is obviously not genuine. Obviously no one should pay any mind to any warmizombie preaching the doom-n-gloom of the end of the world, e.g. oceans are rising, the air is almost unbreathable, the ocean's water is turning into battery acid, the earth's surface is about to bake to a crisp, etc... The fear-mongering is not a true concern for future generations but rather an attempt to scare people into capitulating to the Marxist political agenda, which similarly cares nothing for future generations.

That is the hypocrisy and that is the topic, the reality we face with this whole Global Warming thing. It doesn't take rocket science to see that there isn't any rocket science involved. It's just a scam religion.

jwoodward48 wrote: I meant "no". You specified a living human. A single fertilized egg is not a living human being.

So what?

Aaaah, that's right, ...you operate under the assumption that word games make everything OK.

I'm not going to play your word games. You actively advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes. That pretty much makes you a piece of chit

... and you fully realize this, so you seek a word-game that helps you convince yourself that it's all somehow OK. Just kill innocent, living humans and then pretend to be concerned about future generations. You have to be laughing when you do.

jwoodward48 wrote: A zygote is just an egg with twice as much genetic information.

"Just." Awesome. Hey, an adult male human is just a larger collection of molecules.

Is there anything wrong with carving up a living male human who has committed no crime ... for his parts, you know, that are composed of smaller collections of molecules?

jwoodward48 wrote: It contains all of the DNA necessary to make a baby.

Yes, the zygote is at the first stage of life, fully capable of advancing to all the future stages.

Nonetheless, you want to kill it and prevent it from reaching any of the others.

And yet you pretend to be concerned about its future well-being.

Nice.

jwoodward48 wrote: It is not a human being.

According to your word-game lexicon, I suppose. Biologically, however, it's a living human.

jwoodward48 wrote: That requires a consciousness.

Sorry. Biologically, there are two requirements to being a living human: 1. be living and 2. be human. Typically, both criteria can be easily discerned.

jwoodward48 wrote: If someone is in a vegetable state and is completely incapable of thought or emotion, then they are effectively dead.

I have a relative who emerged from a coma after more than one month. He was never dead. He was a living human the entire time. Your understanding on this topic is entirely F'ed-up.

Once again, I invite you over to the science side of the house.

Ditch the crap religion and stop wandering in a hazy stupor.

I know the draw of the leftist dark side is more seductive and makes you feel that "high" you can only get when you let someone else do your thinking for you, but forever will it dominate your destiny, Luke. Ditch the WACKY religion now.

jwoodward48 wrote: Because Cuba is awful? Their health care is actually rather good.

Once again, I'm going to ask you if your beliefs are based on personal experience

and you are going to pout like a baby and EVADE, just like you did when discussing your beliefs about the Greenland ice sheet.

You preach WACKY dogma based on blind faith and expect others to accept your words as "settled science."

I, however, speak with emigrated Cubans all the time. I won't pull a spot or a Ceist or a Surface Detail and pretend to speak for them.

I will only relay that those with whom I have spoken (many) don't share your view, and they do have direct personal experience with the Cuban "healthcare" system. So, if you expect to be convincing in the slightest, you might want to save the "Cuba has great health care" claims for those who don't have Cuban friends who are elated to have American hospitals to which they can go.

jwoodward48 wrote: Erm, no? Drugs actually cost less in Canada, ferex.

Correct. It's not for the drugs. It's simply for the medical care that is available here in the US that is not available in Canada. Canadians who need medical care that is unavailable aren't going to sit there hoping and waiting indefinitely for their needed medical care to become available. They just go to the US and get it. Done. Quick and painless.

jwoodward48 wrote: Warmizombies are evil! Therefore nothing they say matters!

At least we can say that there is no credibility behind those who hide behind word games to justify their advocacy of killing living humans who have committed no crimes.

IBdaMann wrote:
It doesn't take rocket science to see that there isn't any rocket science involved. It's just a scam religion.

jwoodward48 wrote:IB: "They're all hypocrites!"
Me: "That's irrelevant."
IB: "What do you mean, it's irrelevant? There's a thread about it!"
*facepalm*

jwoodward48 wrote: Hey, I was merely responding in kind. As I said, we can continue to spin and twist words about to make the other seem like a dictator or an inhuman monster, or we can get to the actual discussion.

jwoodward48 wrote: I'm not trying to "control the discussion,"

jwoodward48 wrote: I'm not "backed into a corner."

jwoodward48 wrote: Because we are all a plague on humanity, and we kick dogs, and we twirl our evil mustaches as we cackle evilly.

jwoodward48 wrote: IT'S ALL JUST A CONSPEERACIE, GUYS

jwoodward48 wrote: Yeah, it's called "advanced thinking,"

jwoodward48 wrote: If I squish a stray skin cell, is that murder? Why not?

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, I cackle evilly every time somebody dies, especially babies. Didn't you know?

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, because it ends a consciousness.

jwoodward48 wrote: And I can turn a sperm and an egg into a human. Is contraception therefore evil?

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't want to prevent it from reaching the other stages.

jwoodward48 wrote: I want women to be capable of doing so.

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, those two statements are not the same - if I keep people from having sex, I am preventing a baby from happening.

jwoodward48 wrote: Once it has a consciousness, I care about it, yes.

jwoodward48 wrote: It is a live organism.

jwoodward48 wrote: It has human DNA.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not it - the consciousness, the mind, makes someone a sentient being.

jwoodward48 wrote: Sorry, I was unclear - if someone is incapable of thought, and will never be capable of thought or consciousness or anything similar, then they are not a human being anymore, no more than my finger is. They are effectively dead.

jwoodward48 wrote:That won't work on me, SW geek I may be. Liberalism isn't the Dark Side.

jwoodward48 wrote: Can I talk with some of these Cuban friends? No? Then you are really just a preaching troll! (Really, IB, you should have known this would come back to haunt you.)

jwoodward48 wrote: Hahahaha! Wait - You're serious! You're really serious! You're never interacted with the US medical system, then. I have.

spot wrote: There is no such thing as rocket science, rocketry is an engineering discipline.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: There is no such thing as rocket science, rocketry is an engineering discipline.

There is rocket science. The field is comprised of all the science used by the rocket engineers to build rockets.
.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:IB: "They're all hypocrites!"
Me: "That's irrelevant."
IB: "What do you mean, it's irrelevant? There's a thread about it!"
*facepalm*

Unable to read for comprehension, are you?

IB DaMann: They're all hypocrites.

jwoodward48: <evasion> ummm, errr, aaaah, ...it's all irrelevant ... I think </evasion>

IB DaMann: Well it's the topic of this thread.

jwoodward48: ...but I'm stuck. I can't think of anything to counter your illumination of obvious hypocrisy. You leave me no choice but to EVADE. I've already chosen to simply dismiss your arguments as "irrelevant." I've got nothing else. <tips king>

IB DaMann: I accept your resignation.

jwoodward48 wrote: Hey, I was merely responding in kind. As I said, we can continue to spin and twist words about to make the other seem like a dictator or an inhuman monster, or we can get to the actual discussion.

Like I said, you resigned. You obviously have no ability to address this topic.

You advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes.

When you strip away all the word games, it makes your position very clear for what it is,...

i.e. human life is less important than a woman's convenience

i.e. you don't care about future generations

i.e. your political agenda involves devaluing human life

...it's not surprising that you don't want your position too closely scrutinized.

jwoodward48 wrote: I'm not trying to "control the discussion,"

Yes, you are. You're trying to bar my illumination of your true position, stripped of all your word games.

Sorry, it's not going to work. You advocate the killing of human life. You give higher priority to a woman's convenience.

Yes, that makes you a bad person. You don't get to strike that from the record. Again, I understand if you're too embarrassed to discuss it. We can just end it here.

jwoodward48 wrote: I'm not "backed into a corner."

It sure looks that way to me. Your EVASION sort of confirms it for everyone.

jwoodward48 wrote: Because we are all a plague on humanity, and we kick dogs, and we twirl our evil mustaches as we cackle evilly.

That's not my wording. I merely characterize you Marxists as a social cancer that attacks the economy until it can no longer sustain the life of the society and widespread misery sets in like an infection. I never said anything about mustaches and dogs, although you might have a point about the cackling.

jwoodward48 wrote: IT'S ALL JUST A CONSPEERACIE, GUYS

Right, there is no such thing as collusion and there are no scams. I'm so totally buying it. It makes so much sense now that you put it that way.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yeah, it's called "advanced thinking,"

In standard English we call it EVASION.

jwoodward48 wrote: If I squish a stray skin cell, is that murder? Why not?

Is that skin cell a human zygote? No? Do you want to get back on topic?

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, I cackle evilly every time somebody dies, especially babies. Didn't you know?

I'll take your word for it, just don't try to tell me you care about future generations.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, because it ends a consciousness.

What if he's not conscious at the moment?

jwoodward48 wrote: And I can turn a sperm and an egg into a human. Is contraception therefore evil?

Silly question. Where is the living human in that equation that is being killed?

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't want to prevent it from reaching the other stages.

Yes you do. That comes hand-in-hand with killing it.

jwoodward48 wrote: I want women to be capable of doing so.

Yes, you want women to be able to kill living humans and prevent them from ever reaching any other life stages. You actively advocate such.

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, those two statements are not the same - if I keep people from having sex, I am preventing a baby from happening.

So what? There's an obvious difference in truth values. Preventing a living human from coming into existence is not the same as killing a living human that has committed no crime. We're talking about the latter.

jwoodward48 wrote: Once it has a consciousness, I care about it, yes.

Unfalsifiable.

You have no idea at which point any human has a consciousness. For all you know a zygote might have a consciousness that forgets everything at some point before birth. You don't know. You can speculate, you can make wild guesses, but you just don't know.

On that point, do you believe that "Climate" will bestow that knowledge upon you if your faith is sufficiently strong?

jwoodward48 wrote: It is a live organism.

That it is.

jwoodward48 wrote: It has human DNA.

That makes the zygote, or later life stage, a living human.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, that's not it - the consciousness, the mind, makes someone a sentient being.

Wait a minute, point me to where we switched from "living human" to "sentient being" because I missed it.

Biology doesn't specify "consciousness" as a requirement for being a living human. You must have reached in deep and pulled that out of your dark religion.

jwoodward48 wrote: Sorry, I was unclear - if someone is incapable of thought, and will never be capable of thought or consciousness or anything similar, then they are not a human being anymore, no more than my finger is. They are effectively dead.

That requires knowledge of the future that you apparently believe is bestown upon you by "Climate."

You're also building the "Halting Problem" into your dogma. That screws it right there.

In some cases, like the Terry Schreiver case, you can know that someone will not ever regain consciousness. However in many cases you can't see the future, and the magic crystal ball hasn't been invented yet. When my aforementioned relative first entered his coma, doctors were certain that that was it for him and they happened to be mistaken.

So the problems with your arguments are threefold:

1. You falsely claim to know that living humans have no consciousness. You don't know.

2. You fallaciously claim that the nonexistent solution to the Halting Problem is the determinant for whether a living human is a living human.

3. Biology only requires that an organism be human and be living in order for it to be a living human. Biology places no requirements of any sort on "consciousness."

jwoodward48 wrote:That won't work on me, SW geek I may be. Liberalism isn't the Dark Side.

Yeah, it pretty much is, with the advocacy for killing living humans on top of the constant intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice.

jwoodward48 wrote: Can I talk with some of these Cuban friends? No? Then you are really just a preaching troll! (Really, IB, you should have known this would come back to haunt you.)

Still not reading for comprehension, are you?

jwoodward48 wrote: Hahahaha! Wait - You're serious! You're really serious! You're never interacted with the US medical system, then. I have.

I see two exclamation points. It looks like you are tipping your king with emphasis.

jwoodward48 wrote: Because if you WRITE something in CAPS it MUST be TRUE.

jwoodward48 wrote: Is that human zygote a person? What makes it a person?

Where is the living human in that equation that is being killed?

jwoodward48 wrote: Circular definition. What separates contraception from abortion?

jwoodward48 wrote: If I were pregnant (bear with me), I probably wouldn't abort it (except rape, medical reasons), but I don't want to restrict other people from doing so.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, I want women to be able to prevent zygotes from becoming living babies. I actively advocate such.

jwoodward48 wrote: Unfalsifiable. ???

jwoodward48 wrote: So obviously, the better choice is to stay on the safe side and require women to carry all zygotes to term, right?

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, why should the government decide where that point is?

On that point, do you believe that "Climate" will bestow that knowledge upon you if your faith is sufficiently strong?

jwoodward48 wrote:That's getting a bit old. You might want to try a new insult-routine.

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: It is a live organism.

jwoodward48 wrote: You equivocist, we used "sentient being" all along when you referred to "killing people" as opposed to killing not-people.

jwoodward48 wrote: This is ethics, you idiot.

jwoodward48 wrote:Guess what - life and death aren't clearly defined! This is actually one of my favorite fields of inquiry and pondering, so all your stupid references to biology are cracking me up.