You must disobey unlawful orders

[IBDaMann]

View attachment 66877

How did you become indoctrinated? You never did tell me what your favorite prayers are.

 

[ZenMode]

How did you become indoctrinated? You never did tell me what your favorite prayers are.

You see, actually being religious, i.e. Christian, requires one to believe any number of ridiculous claims base entirely on the writings of uneducated, superstitious men, who drilled holes in peoples' skulls to cure mental disorders.

The theory of climate change is based on a number of observable and testable scientific factors. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's also not religious superstition. The religious explanation for climate change, i.e. warming, would be "God is mad and has turned up the fires of hell in preparation for his return, when he will hurl non-believers into the lake of fire." Nothing observable. Nothing testable. Just standard religious insanity.

 

[IBDaMann]

The theory of climate change is based on a number of observable and testable scientific factors.

Way too funny! You never disappoint.

1. Why can nobody ever recite this "Theory of Climate Change" in an unambiguous statement that does not violate physics, math, logic or observation? You've had years to do so and can only spew science violation after science violation.

2. Unfortunately, you have no idea what science is, so you are relegated to saying really stupid nonsense like "Theory X which is totally wrong, is based on things." Hint: It doesn't matter on what a bogus theory is based. Also, there is no basis that somehow wondrously transforms a bogus theory into valid, objective truth. I shouldn't be the first person to teach you all of this, but here we are.

3. There is no such thing as a scientific factor. There are only factors. Remember, you don't even know what science is. You shouldn't be pretending to have useful contributions on this topic. So, your religion is based on factors. Great. Just state what that theory is, without violating science, math, logic or observations.

While you are at it, you are years overdue for a formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate science, math, logic or observation. Please provide that. Of course, religions don't have any such definitions to provide, so we can tell right up front that you won't be providing any.

That doesn't mean it's true,

Stupid statement. Of course it isn't true; it violates math, science, logic and observation.

but it's also not religious superstition.

I'm fine if you simply wish to refer to it as a plain, vanilla religion.

The religious explanation for climate change, i.e. warming, would be "God is mad and has turned up the fires of hell in preparation for his return, when he will hurl non-believers into the lake of fire."

Thank you. You are soooooo close. You err in your Christian-warmizombie hybrid explanation. The plain, vanilla religious warmizombie explanation is very close to what you wrote, i.e. "The goddess Climate is mad and has unleashed the forcings of Global Warming in punishment for man's carbon sins, and She will hurl the world's global climate into the feedback of fire."

... but you were so very close.

Nothing observable. Nothing testable. Just standard religious insanity.

Thank you. We do see eye-to-eye.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Theists can sound as silly as atheists, yes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Theists can sound as silly as atheists, yes.

Extremists of any flavor are always weird.

 

[ZenMode]

Way too funny! You never disappoint.

1. Why can nobody ever recite this "Theory of Climate Change" in an unambiguous statement that does not violate physics, math, logic or observation? You've had years to do so and can only spew science violation after science violation.

People do. You ignore it or have never heard it because you have no interest in actually understanding anything about climate change.

2. Unfortunately, you have no idea what science is, so you are relegated to saying really stupid nonsense like "Theory X which is totally wrong, is based on things." Hint: It doesn't matter on what a bogus theory is based. Also, there is no basis that somehow wondrously transforms a bogus theory into valid, objective truth. I shouldn't be the first person to teach you all of this, but here we are.

As I said above, you have no interest in understanding the science behind climate. It's called willful ignorance.

3. There is no such thing as a scientific factor. There are only factors.

No, there are things that are specifically associated with science. Students do different things in chemistry class than they do in English.

Remember, you don't even know what science is.

Deflection.

You shouldn't be pretending to have useful contributions on this topic. So, your religion is based on factors. Great. Just state what that theory is, without violating science, math, logic or observations.

Between the two of us, I am the only one who's made any kind of attempt at understanding both sides of the topic.

While you are at it, you are years overdue for a formal, unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate science, math, logic or observation. Please provide that. Of course, religions don't have any such definitions to provide, so we can tell right up front that you won't be providing any.

Pass. I've already wasted more time than I wanted to on you and this topic since you have no intellectual curiosity.

Stupid statement. Of course it isn't true; it violates math, science, logic and observation.

As I said above.

I'm fine if you simply wish to refer to it as a plain, vanilla religion.


Thank you. You are soooooo close. You err in your Christian-warmizombie hybrid explanation. The plain, vanilla religious warmizombie explanation is very close to what you wrote, i.e. "The goddess Climate is mad and has unleashed the forcings of Global Warming in punishment for man's carbon sins, and She will hurl the world's global climate into the feedback of fire."

... but you were so very close.


Thank you. We do see eye-to-eye.

Any who, you finally got what you wanted which is a response from me in a topic you have no interest in understanding and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

I'm done wasting my time.

 

[Jake Starkey]

IBDaMann is willfully ignorant.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

IBDaMann is willfully ignorant.

Can a mentally ill person, especially a paranoid schizophrenic, be "willfully ignorant"? Asking for a friend.

 

[IBDaMann]

People do.

Nope. Never. It has never happened in the history of humanity. By the way, that includes activity on JPP. By the way, that includes you.

You ignore it or have never heard it because you have no interest in actually understanding anything about climate change.

... and history records yet another post that includes no such definition. Humanity's batting average remains at 0.000

As I said above, you have no interest in understanding the science behind climate.

As I note almost every time, instead of actually discussing any science due to your scientific illiteracy and science denial, you pretend to to be omniscient, to know what I value, to know things that you don't know, and to attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you are a scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept moron who is bitter about having turned out to be such a gullible loser that he falls for, and becomes obsessed with, WACKY religions mandated by the DNC.

Let's address your omniscience fallacy again. I'm thinking of a number. What is it? Round to three decimals.

No, there are things that are specifically associated with science.

You have no idea what science even is. You are scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept and likely economics challenged. Your statement, beyond being absurdly vague (i.e. there are THINGS associated with science!), is a desperate plea for people to believe that you somehow know something about science. We have already debunked that sham a few hundred times.

Students do different things in chemistry class than they do in English.

In English, the correct preposition for "different" is "from." The word "than" is an error. You should have written "Students do different things in chemistry class from what they do in English.

Try to refrain from using any pretense that you somehow understand any science or English as any sort of basis for an argument; it doesn't work in your case.

Deflection.

You should see a therapist about your penchant for self-delusion.

Between the two of us, I am the only one who's made any kind of attempt at understanding both sides of the topic.

Between the two of us, I am the only one who understands the topic in its entirety, while you understand nothing, despite your "attempts" ... which merely amount to refusing to learn anything you are taught.

Pass. I've already wasted more time than I wanted to on you and this topic since you have no intellectual curiosity.

You didn't convert me to your WACKY Climate religion and you are butt hurt. Now you are curling your lower lip and pouting like a baby. Learning is just too much work for you, so you opt to cry in the corner.

Have you ever considered returning to the people who indoctrinated you into your religious obsession and demanding of them their unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate science, math, logic or observation, knowing that they should have provided that to you in the first place? You know that you are going to be asked to provide it. You know that nobody has ever offered any such definition, ever, which is why you aren't able to ever post it.

Are you afraid that they'll bend you over furniture again and ream more of the same indoctrination into you until you stop demanding the definition? You're afraid, aren't you?

Get that definition.

Any who, you finally got what you wanted ...

Nope. I want an unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate science, math, logic or observation.

... in a topic you have no interest in ...

For someone who pretends to be omniscient, you certainly are having a difficult time providing a definition that you insist that you have.

... has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Blame the person who brought religion into the discussion. Whenever the topic of religion is breeched, your religion becomes fair game, regardless of the extent to which you whine and cry and pout and snivel.

I'm done wasting my time.

Nope. You are obsessed with your WACKY religion. You can't let it go. You can't just sit there while your religion is shown to be a scam.

 

[Jake Starkey]

I am getting a kick out of these goofs talking about the military chain of command and who owns what responsibility for what order.

No staff officer would "by direction" an order he thought was unlawful, particularly any pertaining to life and limb.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am getting a kick out of these goofs talking about the military chain of command and who owns what responsibility for what order.

No staff officer would "by direction" an order he thought was unlawful, particularly any pertaining to life and limb.

A key part is what were their orders and the legality of those orders.

 

[IBDaMann]

I am getting a kick out of these goofs talking about the military chain of command and who owns what responsibility for what order.

If you had actually been in the military, you'd know that this is kind of a big deal.

No staff officer would "by direction" an order he thought was unlawful, particularly any pertaining to life and limb.

Too funny. Of course there have been no courts martial for this because no staff officer would ever do this.

 

[IBDaMann]

Theists can sound as silly as atheists, yes.

How do atheists sound?