15 Year old Girl creates anti-Inconvenient website...

Battleborne said:
Now go out and have a great big double cheese burger with fries,onion rings and a cold beer....ya will feel much better knowing that it did not kill ya..as Jesus said...'It is not what goes into the body that fouls it..but that which comes out of the mouth' Taken in the literal sense...well this makes alot of sense to me...how about you???:p
Click to expand...
I choose not to eat red meat for a different reason, not because of morality. All things we eat we take life... The idea that because it is vegetable it is somehow more moral to take is not a logical argument.

Buddha tells us that no living thing should be sacrificed, that is a far cry from no living should be killed at all. Without that there would be no continuation of life.
 
Right....

Damocles said:
I choose not to eat red meat for a different reason, not because of morality. All things we eat we take life... The idea that because it is vegetable it is somehow more moral to take is not a logical argument.

Buddha tells us that no living thing should be sacrificed, that is a far cry from no living should be killed at all. Without that there would be no continuation of life.
Click to expand...



***sigh*** and why did God or whomever or whatever give man canine teeth
?? Is it just cool or to eat what God provided us with...play the semantics game till the cows come home...but ya will still lose in the end!
 
Battleborne said:
***sigh*** and why did God or whomever or whatever give man canine teeth
?? Is it just cool or to eat what God provided us with...play the semantics game till the cows come home...but ya will still lose in the end!
Click to expand...
We also have teeth made for eating vegetables. It is a very different reason I choose to do that.

Sigh all you wish, it is my choice. When have I ever said that you should also? You clearly didn't read my post which stated that it was moral to eat meat and decided to just assume an opinion.
 
Fuck, you people can be stupid. Global Warming IS..I REPEAT, IS cyclical.

That does NOT mean that we cannot interrupt said cycle.

Some of you were born into the wrong species.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Fuck, you people can be stupid. Global Warming IS..I REPEAT, IS cyclical.

That does NOT mean that we cannot interrupt said cycle.

Some of you were born into the wrong species.
Click to expand...
Nor does it mean that we have interrupted said cycle. I'll take the word of the climatologists that I have heard speak on the issue to the negative to understand that this "consensus" includes that the world is warming, not that the world is warming because of human action. Those are two separate ideas that the scientists have not reached "consensus" on. Nor is "consensus" the measure by which facts are created.

You can repeat this as many times as you want to, but that doesn't change that reasonable people might still disagree on this one.
 
Try again. The overwhelming majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS agree that the current state of accelerated warming is due to human activity.

Please show me otherwise.
 
Human caused Climate Change is damned near fact...which is the best one can hope for as far as science is concerned. If you want something more, appeal to faith.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Try again. The overwhelming majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS agree that the current state of accelerated warming is due to human activity.

Please show me otherwise.
Click to expand...
The overwhelming majority of people once believed that the world was flat, that didn't make it reality.

Please prove me wrong.

And saying that "consensus" science can still be wrong is not a logical fallacy. In fact, that itself is simply rejecting history.
 
My argument is, and always will be, there are better reasons to care for the environment than a "consensus of scientists" in a new science. There is a real moral and logical reason to consider the environment without working on the fears of others.

When Al Gore spends some minutes in his movie talking about 20 ft rise when the ICAA report says 23 inches at the worst, that is fear tactic wrangling and unnecessary.
 
You are using "Appeal To Authority" Fallacy incorrectly. You brought up the idea that many "Climatologists" refuted Human Caused Global Warming. I asked you to show that. That FACT is that the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists wholeheartedly accept Human Caused Global Warming as being as close to fact as science can provide, and the overwhelming majority who refute it are NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

The argument is as close to OVER as an argument ever CAN BE, as far as sci8ence is concerned. Wake up.
 
GWB is following the advice of Rove, and is trying to deflect blame for what his administration has been saying for seven years. it is now obvious that Human Caused Global Warming is real. So much so, that even the spin-masters HAVE TO ACCEPT IT.

Now, they put forth their policies on "mitigating climate change", with which they pretend to have never tried to refute it, as well as do nothing but pay lip-service to it.

You will hear a lot about Climate Change from republicans in the next few years, and nothing will be done to fix the problem. talk, talk...balk, balk.
 
That has become the Republican strategy as of the last several years. They realize that their ideologies fly in the face of reality, so they simply try to STALL.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
You are using "Appeal To Authority" Fallacy incorrectly. You brought up the idea that many "Climatologists" refuted Human Caused Global Warming. I asked you to show that. That FACT is that the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists wholeheartedly accept Human Caused Global Warming as being as close to fact as science can provide, and the overwhelming majority who refute it are NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

The argument is as close to OVER as an argument ever CAN BE, as far as sci8ence is concerned. Wake up.
Click to expand...
I said some climatologists do, not many. I listen to them as well as I have seen in the past history that sometimes those who buck the consensus are correct.

Anyway, my point is, and has been, that there are other (ones I believe to be better) reasons to promote care for the environment.

I don't care what GWB says about it.

If nothing at all is done about it, it won't be the fault of GWB or the republicans. The Ds run the show on the legislation side, if nothing is done about it set it squarely in their lap they are in the position to make the change. And will even be in a better position to make that change, in all likelihood, in 2009.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top