Remember me
▼ Content

Is "Climate" Concern Genuine?


Is "Climate" Concern Genuine?03-11-2016 20:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
How can someone claim to be greatly concerned about the future of humanity and its impending doom at the hands of catastrophic man-made impacts to something less than falsifiable, while at the same time advocating that women have the choice of executing living humans that have committed no crime just for their own convenience?

By all accounts, warmizombie concerns for humanity's welfare are not genuine.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-11-2016 05:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Blatant ad hominem, and also a variant of appeal to hypocrisy. Dismissed.
04-11-2016 14:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: Blatant ad hominem, and also a variant of appeal to hypocrisy. Dismissed.

Ad hominem? Someone didn't read my post. Oh wait, you noticed my clear illumination of warmizombie hypocrisy which reveals that warmizombie "concern" is entirely feigned.

So, is it the case that you simply don't know what "ad homien" means?

Kudos, however, for recognizing that anyone who wants to kill off future generations right now can't be truly concerned about some undefined and unfalsifiable "threat" to future generations.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-11-2016 14:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
04-11-2016 16:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Another trolling post, thermodynamics trolling getting boring?
04-11-2016 16:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-11-2016 16:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.

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.
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.

Haha, that's a good euphemism. "Public scrutiny," where you are the public and "scrutiny" is another word for fallacious, trolling logic. Or perhaps abuse or harassment. You're capable of both.
Let's run through it:

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

No. Do you believe that there is any significant difference between "egg + sperm" and "egg, with sperm inside"? Do you believe that a single human cell with the potential for human life is in fact a human life?

And if you're so concerned about human life, how about universal health care etc. Except you don't like that, because you're a hypocrite. Except that this doesn't matter because hypocrisy doesn't make an argument invalid.
Do you believe that we should act to save future generations from the "climate change" threat?

Yes.
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.

No, it's irrelevant. You seriously don't get this "logic" thing.
If your "concern" for future generations is actually a sham, that has a direct bearing on your arguments for catastrophic Global Warming.

Except it doesn't, because that's an argument from hypocrisy and is a logical fallacy.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
04-11-2016 17:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-11-2016 07:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.

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: 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 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?

Yes, I think that the government should not control women's wombs. Let's spin this some more, shall we? Or can we get to actual discussion?
So did you actually mean "yes"?

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

Oh, yay, some equivocation.

A zygote is just an egg with twice as much genetic information. It contains all of the DNA necessary to make a baby. It is not a human being. That requires a consciousness. If someone is in a vegetable state and is completely incapable of thought or emotion, then they are effectively dead. If someone is brain-dead, then regardless of the state of their various organs and processes, they are dead. Life/death/not-life is defined by consciousness.
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?

Available to everyone. There are many reasons, not only ethical reasons. (I mean, I figured cared about other people, considering how outspoken you are about abortion, but maybe you only care about zygotes; if a person gets sick, dies, who cares? They had too many cells, too much consciousness, for them to matter.) For instance, economic reasons.
Health care that is unavailable, albeit free, looks exactly the same as health care that is too expensive.

Well gee, that doesn't really sound like universal health care. Maybe that's not what I was talking about, hmm?
Do you know why the world isn't flocking to Cuba for free health care?

Because Cuba is awful? Their health care is actually rather good.
Do you know why so many Canadians come to the US for their health care?

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

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

Yes. Are you? (It doesn't appear so.)

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.

[responds with a threat of defeating you in logical combat] [asserts own superiority]

(this is too boring to dedicate more than a few seconds to writing; when will we get to it?)
So we're left with warmizombie claims about catastrophic "climate change" not being genuine.

Warmizombies are evil! Therefore nothing they say matters!
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.

Not only are they evil, but they're evil commies! Everything they say shouldn't just be ignored, we should do the opposite!


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-11-2016 16:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-11-2016 18:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.

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: 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).

Okay, so we can agree here.
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.

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: 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.

If that's your idea of "actual discussion," then I'm a bit concerned for you.

I'm not trying to "control the discussion," I'm suggesting that we get to the discussion. Propaganda-manufacturing isn't interesting to me, it isn't challenging, and it proves nothing. And it convinces nobody but your own side.

I'm not "backed into a corner." You rightist people like to insist that you are on the brink of victory, and thus we have already won. Yeah, right.
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.

Because we are all a plague on humanity, and we kick dogs, and we twirl our evil mustaches as we cackle evilly. Or, I don't know, I could be a fellow human? It's easier to see all your enemies as demons though.
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.

IT'S ALL JUST A CONSPEERACIE, GUYS

THEY'RE A BUNCH OF EVIIIIIL ILLUMIN-MARX-I WHO WANT TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD WITH THEIR EVIL RELIGION OF LIES
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.

And hypocrisy doesn't invalidate an argument, so it's irrelevant to a discussion of whether AGW is occuring.
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.

Yeah, it's called "advanced thinking," not "word games." It's drawing a distinction between "has human DNA" and "is a person". If I squish a stray skin cell, is that murder? Why not?
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

"You are wrong. Therefore, you are evil, so I shouldn't listen to anything you say." Isn't that nice, dear, you've made a bubble. Just don't let any reality in, and you'll be fine.
... 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.

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

Except that they have a consciousness.
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?

Yes, because it ends a consciousness.
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.

And I can turn a sperm and an egg into a human. Is contraception therefore evil?
Nonetheless, you want to kill it and prevent it from reaching any of the others.

I don't want to prevent it from reaching the other stages. I want women to be capable of doing so. Also, those two statements are not the same - if I keep people from having sex, I am preventing a baby from happening.
And yet you pretend to be concerned about its future well-being.

Once it has a consciousness, I care about it, yes. Wait, no, I don't, I want to profit from their labour as I cackle evilly and kick a dog, remember?
Nice.

The Nice model.
jwoodward48 wrote: It is not a human being.

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

It is a live organism. It has human DNA. Does that make it a human being?
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.

No, that's not it - the consciousness, the mind, makes someone a sentient being. If someone is not sentient, they are not a person. They are not "someone" at all.
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.

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

Labeling something "science" doesn't make it science.
Ditch the crap religion and stop wandering in a hazy stupor.

I worship feces, yes, and I am constantly drunk. These accusations are most peculiar.
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.

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

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

"No, you're immature!"
You preach WACKY dogma based on blind faith and expect others to accept your words as "settled science."

Normal IB rant.
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.

Lemme guess, you will.
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.

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: 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.

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

Like I said, "if you disagree with me, there's no point in listening to you." Nice bubble.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-11-2016 19:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
IBdaMann wrote:
It doesn't take rocket science to see that there isn't any rocket science involved. It's just a scam religion.



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

I thought you knew everything, my illusions are shattered



IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
07-11-2016 20:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-11-2016 20:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
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.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-11-2016 20:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
.


Indeed. Sorry, spot, but IB is right in this case.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-11-2016 21:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.

Well, apparently "that's an ad hominem" is an evasion. The more you know.

Look, it doesn't matter if we are hypocritical. I can even assume that we are, for the sake of discussion! That doesn't invalidate anything I say. You are making an ad hominem fallacy.
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.

That's not an actual response, that's just saying, "welp, I lost. Wait! If I say that I won, and that he's stupid, then I guess I won after all!" Sure you did, dear. Off to kindergarten yet?
You advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes.

Except that I don't, because those "living humans" are not people.
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 laugh evilly whenever a woman kills her child, yes.
i.e. you don't care about future generations

I cackle maniacally whenever I consider how I am... in the process of destroying the world somehow? I haven't gotten to that part yet. I'm such a failure at this "evil" thing.
i.e. your political agenda involves devaluing human life

And then I will have succeeded in setting up a dystopian world, with me as the high leader! Bwahahaha!
...it's not surprising that you don't want your position too closely scrutinized.

I'm fine with scrutiny, just not 'scrutiny' (read: insults and fallacies).
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.

"I AM JUST AN OPPRESSED GENIUS"

I'm saying that insulting each other isn't productive. I'm suggesting that we move beyond insults, as rational and mature beings. (Well, I'm assuming that you're rational and mature.)
Sorry, it's not going to work. You advocate the killing of human life. You give higher priority to a woman's convenience.

[Trump]No.[/Trump]
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.

You're so funny when you offer me the chance to surrender. Yes, you are definitely at the brink of victory. For sure.
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm not "backed into a corner."

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

Because if you WRITE something in CAPS it MUST be TRUE. Also I said it, and you're just a Marxist, so I'm right.
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.

I was laughing at how stereotypically evil you saw me.
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.

RIGHT, RIGHT, NOW TAKE THIS RED PILL
jwoodward48 wrote: Yeah, it's called "advanced thinking,"

In standard English we call it EVASION.

In standard English we call that a RECORDED or DEFAULT RESPONSE.
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?

Is that human zygote a person? What makes it a person?
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.

*someone doesn't get sarcasm*
jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, because it ends a consciousness.

What if he's not conscious at the moment?

It takes an existing consciousness and prevents it from ever becoming conscious again. If I put someone into eternal unbreakable sleep, that's basically killing them. WHICH MEANS THAT I AM MALEFICENT THE EVIL VILLIAN.
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?

Circular definition. What separates contraception from abortion?
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.

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: 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.

Yes, I want women to be able to prevent zygotes from becoming living babies. I 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.

But that relies on when you define a person as coming into existence. Why do you define that as "just after fertilization"?

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

Unfalsifiable.

???

Certainly, you can falsify the statement that I care.
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.

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

Why don't you apply that logic to AGW?

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

Oh! I have an example! Wheat has a consciousness! Everybody who eats wheat is a murderer! There's no way of telling, but it's really true! YOU MURDERERS, YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO ME
On that point, do you believe that "Climate" will bestow that knowledge upon you if your faith is sufficiently strong?

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

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.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't make it a living human being, as in an entity with rights and protections and such.
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.

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

This is ethics, you idiot.

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."

How did that get here?
You're also building the "Halting Problem" into your dogma. That screws it right there.

You're right - we can't know if a vegetative person will wake up again. We can know that a cell is not conscious.
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.

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.
So the problems with your arguments are threefold:

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

And you don't know if that rock has a consciousness.
2. You fallaciously claim that the nonexistent solution to the Halting Problem is the determinant for whether a living human is a living human.

Death is ill-defined, as is life, but requiring consciousness is a perfectly fine rule - many philosophers agree with me, if not most.
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."

And that's irrelevant. We are discussing ethics.
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.

They aren't living human beings, and that's just more insults.
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?

Don't you remember? You wanted to speak with my father, who "inducted me into the Faith of Marxism". I said he wouldn't speak. You accused me of being a preaching troll. Still not capable of memory past a few seconds, huh?
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.

Well isn't that nice, dear, you've noted a grammatical mistake. And that of course invalidates everything he said. Good job. Pink milk?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-11-2016 23:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: Because if you WRITE something in CAPS it MUST be TRUE.

Perhaps you aren't sharp enough to pick up on the words that I write in upper case, e.g. WACKY, EVADE, etc...




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

I'm not the one playing word games. I'm not the one trying to hijack the word person and insert it into the discussion.

"Living Human" is as far as I need to go. You're fine with killing living humans that have committed no crimes.

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

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

"Circular definition" is not a valid answer to the question. Until you clarify, your original question is summarily dismissed.

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.

Virtually all female warmizombies say this, i.e. "Of course I would not, likely, probably, reasonably, ... ever have an abortion but I will rabidly encourage other women to never even hesitate to kill their dependent living human who has killed no crime.

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

Not that this was ever in question but thanks for officially stating such.


jwoodward48 wrote: Unfalsifiable. ???

You cannot know when a living human has a consciousness. There is not test for it. Your arguments are based on an unfalsifiable assertion.

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

Perhaps the better choice is to not kill living humans who have committed no crimes just for a woman's convenience.

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

Why must someone decide the unfalsifiable?


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.

Your professing to know things you don't is what has long-since gotten old. Every time you do, be prepared for the question asking whether you got that divine knowledge from "Climate" or from some other deity.

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

That it is.

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

I use the term "living human." Will you show me where I did not?


jwoodward48 wrote: This is ethics, you idiot.

It's science, you science-denying moron.


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.

The fact that you are "pondering" does not justify your EVASION.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Is "Climate" Concern Genuine?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Americans' energy use surges despite climate change concern019-04-2019 14:57
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)611-12-2017 20:05
Genuine, serious, new solution227-05-2014 16:26
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact