"How much is liberalism like a religion?"
"
The Theology of Liberalism"
There is a sort of orthodoxy required among liberals. Do you believe in climate change? What about the gender pay gap? Those who do not toe the line often find themselves exiled — not just from the fold, but from the conversation.
To some extent, these views are merely what we mean when we say the word “liberal” — they describe a political program roughly supported by one major party. But at some point, these views have become prescriptive; they have morphed into a moral structure to provide meaning and guidance in place of religion. When political beliefs start to explain why bad things happen to good people, they may be crystallizing into something closer to faith.
Political views and religious belief are indeed two very different things, and many liberals have even criticized the pseudo-religious trends in their movement and party. Nevertheless, some recent events should make us wonder just how religious liberal orthodoxy has become...
The accusations are endless. If you don’t believe in liberal positions about climate change, the minimum wage or social justice programs, you must have been bought off — there simply is no other possible explanation. How could you hate the poor so much? How could you doubt established facts? How could you hate yourself?
“Don’t like big government? You’re a nihilist,” Harsanyi adds. Supporters of traditional marriage and sexuality are “transphobic, homophobic.” Pro-life advocates “may claim that you want to save unborn girls from the scalpels of Planned Parenthood, but your real goal is to control women — even if you’re Carly Fiorina.”
This move to silence the debate does not end with Twitter. Last month, 20 climate scientists petitioned President Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) – a law intended to fight organized crime — against people who “denied” climate change.
When Brookings scholar Robert Litan dared to analyze the downsides of a new federal regulation backed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Warren essentially forced him to resign, despite the scholar’s more than 40 years at the organization.
When retired neurosurgeon and presidential candidate Ben Carson said that the Nazis confiscated the firearms of Jews prior to the Holocaust, prominent liberals didn’t rebut his arguments. They didn’t even call him a liar. Instead, they wrote “f**k off” and accused him of “blaming the victims.” Carson was right, by the way, even though his comments were politically unwise and a bit oversimplified...
Nowhere is the mechanism of liberal confession more pronounced than on many of today’s college campuses. Princeton student Tal Fortgang recalled that multiple times in 2014, when he voiced conservative opinions, he was met with an immediate response: “Check your privilege!” (read more)
102 comments:
Religions usually have fewer fanatics.
This has been an observation of mine for a long time. I even said so in the Matlin/Dowd post yesterday. Leftism is the official religion of the Federal government and parents nationwide send their children to the K-12 temples on a daily basis, with their teachers/teachers unions as Clergy/Patriarchy, and universities being the land of seminaries. And we wonder why leftism is reigning supreme for the minds and hearts of our children? We've been producing them for 50 years or more. What did you think was going to happen? The Orthodoxy/Dogma of the Church of Leftism is political correctness with it's enforcers being the SJW's. It's all there.
I understand blind adherence to things like minimum wage, or universal health care. The free market argument is a tough one that seems almost counter-intuitive to our modern maleducated and minimally experienced people. Some need more of something, and someone else has extra stuff, so just take theirs and give it away. Pretty easy argument when most people need something, and there are always people who have more than you, who of course never deserve it.
But, the global warming obsession really surprises me with its breadth and total unquestioning acceptance. It is literally everywhere and it's blamed for every single occurrence observed in our world, even ones that would argue against it, which are twisted to fit. It's mass hysteria.
Regardless or if it's actually true or not, nobody really knows. It is a theory based on models, and those models, so far, have performed very poorly at predicting actual climate conditions. That doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong, but many if not most of the predictions of climate change just haven't happened, actually went the opposite way, or have occurred at a much diminished degree than what was predicted. That still doesn't make it unproven either, but Jesus in a pink lab coat, have some humility and self-doubt in the face of evidence, or even better just wait for the evidence before jumping to the most extreme hypothesis, and then demanding sweeping changes to every facet of life. That does not seem either scientific or reasoned.
I read this today on Powerline blog. A commenter said: "Hot-earthers have three kinds of predictions: things that should have happened but haven't, things that can't be verified as happening at all, and things that would happen with or without global warming. ~ Debora Brown - Sentinel High School. That seems about right to me.
I can't think of anything in history accepted so quickly, by so many, so completely and unquestioningly, with so little confirmation, and then most surprisingly, with such deep seated hatred for healthy scepticism. It is a strange phenomenon.
Bag, it's amazing that in the hard sciences, say like physics, theories and ideas get challenged all the time. Papers are written, they are supposed to be peer reviewed and experiments made to verify the ideas posited in the papers. Sometimes more than one team sets out with experiments to corroborate either the mathematical models and/or observable data. This is science, via the scientific method. Global Warming or whatever you want to call it is quasi-seemingly-rational-idea of something someone thinks is going on, but has no way to quantify it because trying to do so is such a large open ended mess that trying to corral all of that data across multiple open ended systems requires massive computing power, massive amounts of people, a massively large data set and algorithms to match. So instead, they go on a philosophical talking spree and spread the idea as a theory, the rest of the nodding heads harumph in agreement, spread it around for many many years, rinse, repeat over and over again, and viola, it's accepted fact with 'scientific consensus' that neither requires proof, corroboration, or accurate scientific data and you have an accepted view that global warming is real and if anyone dares challenge it this new orthodoxy, it will require naming, shaming, ostricization, negative labels, and if the leftist orthodoxy had it's way, then prison for daring to disagree or question it.
This is but an aspect of what the left is. This is who they are.
In the past there would have been devotion to God, your religious traditions, family, country, and the hard work that survival and advancement required. Much of it would be emotion driven, and maintained. All that emotion and energy has to go somewhere now. We are still the same bundle of human needs and drives. Substitutes will be found or created if nessessary.
Methadras said...
Leftism is the official religion of the Federal government and parents nationwide send their children to the K-12 temples on a daily basis, with their teachers/teachers unions as Clergy/Patriarchy, and universities being the land of seminaries. And we wonder why leftism is reigning supreme for the minds and hearts of our children?
I think that's because we hear about the Ivy Leaguers and the ones at the other big pay for play colleges.
If the Warsaw Pact and other places are any indication, a lot of the indoctrination doesn't take with most people.
Maybe it's a religion and maybe it's just self-interest. We know the types whose answer to everything is MORE GOVERNMENT gravitate to government work. Or they go into the fourth estate or academe, spheres that have a symbiotic relationship to government. They are not the types who build empires starting in their garage. They are not the types that build anything. They are the types that hector and government is the best platform for hectoring the makers while simultaneously living off them. Do I have to hammer the point? The more government the better for THEM.
Bags, The great, Michael Crichton gave a speech probably 12-15 years ago where he eviscerates the religion of global warming. It might be on YouTube. Crichton was someone the left had a real problem vilifying. He also slammed the left for not treating HIV like a medical epidemic and more like a social cause. The result being many gay men dying.
Maybe global warming is actually ideal for a religious belief. Like most religions the basic tenants rely on faith, safely unprovable, at least for now. As with all religions, I remain agnostic.
I don't know if global warming is real, meaning that the climate is actually changing, getting warmer, it's not natural, and humans are the cause.
I don't know that it's a net negative to the planet, to humans, or to other life.
I don't know if feedback loops, solar output, or something else will self-adjust the thing away if it does happen.
I don't know if we can do anything about it if we do decide it's a bad thing, and the idea that we can and will do something about it is the hardest of all these beliefs to have faith in.
I am sure that a great amount of graft and fraud will find it's home in this religion. That's pretty much a natural law of our species.
I am also sure that if contrary evidence appears, that no matter how clear it is, it will have a very difficult time getting people to give up these beliefs and accept them as myth alone. Some will resist out of greed, some out of stubbornness, and some out of embarrassment.
If warming turns out to be true, I'm fine with that, but all the rest has to come to pass as well, or what is being done now in it's name is a fraud, a delusion, and a crime.
Right. But denying that humans impact the environment, pretending that Scandinavia is Soviet Russia, upholding China as the model economy, hating the downtrodden by insisting that they must be morally inferior, and believing that America's military might will make every problem around the world go away are rational understandings, with no theological irrationality behind them at all.
Yes. Let's hold out rational conclusion and a cautious approach to terraforming when the corals are being bleached and the icy foundation of West Antarctica melts. Because it is arrogant for people to learn from nature. Who does this "nature" think it is!? We are men! We invented nature! There is no need to be cautious about the increased accumulation of change it shows in response to the changing inputs into its systems! Drawing conclusions and being cautious about continuing these things is WRONG because we have to get nature to listen to us. We don't have to learn from or take cues from nature. That would be arrogant.
Hey. If Bag o $ violently struck a man in the forehead, who's to say that the blunt trauma force killed him? Maybe there was some other scientific (or divine) explanation. It's simple arrogance to look to the most obvious causes as explanations for what we see around us. The wise conclusion is that it isn't the thousands of volts of electricity or lethal injection that kills the prisoner. It's the will of the divine. Who died and made us the gods to whom all knowledge is restricted? I mean, only a religious conviction will tell you that it's possible to conclude things, ascribe causation and advance scientific knowledge. In the end we don't really know all that the scientists say we know and this "reality" thing we observe all around us is just an illusion. A fantasy placed into our minds by some other force or intelligence. Just who do we think we are -- these arrogant people who tell us that reality is real!? How dare they. This is the internet era. If we don't want to believe we are impacting the planet then we don't have to. Better to read a cartoon instead. That's where reality comes from.
This is science, via the scientific method. Global Warming or whatever you want to call it is quasi-seemingly-rational-idea of something someone thinks is going on, but has no way to quantify it because trying to do so is such a large open ended mess that trying to corral all of that data across multiple open ended systems requires massive computing power, massive amounts of people, a massively large data set and algorithms to match.
Yep. It's just too hard to measure whether blooms are sprouting earlier each year, or whether tropical parasites are spreading northward to more vegetation (and bees! - who needs them!) or whether more coral are bleaching and dying each year or whether the temperature anomaly at the surface of the ocean is rising. It's simply impossible to know these things or make obvious conclusions from them. Why? I guess because FOX News told me so it must be so. FOX is great that way. They got us to make wonderful policy choices in the past and had us spend trillions on wars based on iron-clad evidence to "liberate" ISIS' newest hostages so that we could get the WMD Saddam never had. So we should believe them when they decree what it is impossible to know, also.
Hey Saddam was a bad guy and so are the environmentalists so science tells us that we have to oppose what they claim to know. But that's not religious. That's just picking your moral/ideological enemy and constructing your definition of truth around the opposite of what he holds to. Not religious at all. VERY objective, critical and open-minded. If only all science worked that way. Defining a political/ideological/moral enemy and decreeing truth to be the opposite of what he claims. We would be so wise if only the liberals and moderates proceeded to advance their own knowledge that way. But alas, they don't. Bummer.
Dr. Patrick Moore was the founder of Greenpeace. He is an esteemed environmental scientist. I saw Moore interviewed a few years ago. He said when the Viet Nam War ended all those fanatical anti-war people needed a new cause. They took up environmentalism as their new war and ran him out of Greenpeace because he was not radical. Oh, Dr. Moore calls Global Warming really is Global Hysteria.
When retired neurosurgeon and presidential candidate Ben Carson said that the Nazis confiscated the firearms of Jews prior to the Holocaust, prominent liberals didn’t rebut his arguments. They didn’t even call him a liar. Instead, they wrote “f**k off” and accused him of “blaming the victims.” Carson was right, by the way, even though his comments were politically unwise and a bit oversimplified...
Yes, exactly. European Jews and other stateless minorities have a wonderful track record of preventing persecution and atrocity when only the right weapons are available. Like 2000 years ago when they tried that stuff with the Romans. If only were it not for that infamous weapons ban on swords and arrows they could have prevented all that followed. And like that horrible weapons ban placed on the Kurds when they rose up disastrously against Hussein in 1991. OF COURSE they would have succeeded had they not been deprived of weapons. And the Poles! Who deprived them of that amazing cavalry they tried to use in order to thwart Hitler's advance into their heartland? What injustice! Must have been someone who was behind it. Or the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Very poorly armed people - which is exactly why they lost the war, unconditionally surrendered and were then occupied by America. Or the Nazis themselves. Obviously they must have been deprived of weapons or they would have won WWII also. And everyone knows how many bows, arrows, tomahawks, rifles, ammo and horses the Native Americans were prevented from acquiring. That's how they lost control of their land to English settlers.
Why can't leftists get these obvious truths through their thick heads? It's almost like they start with the evidence, and then make conclusions afterward. They just don't understand the superiority of starting with an ideological premise or political aim, and then constructing reality around it. And they call themselves "progressives"! Ha! They don't know 1/10th of what we conservatives know. And that's the secret: It's always easier to proclaim an agenda-driven "truth" first. All the facts will then magically fall into place around it and in support of it.
Dr. Patrick Moore was the founder of Greenpeace. He is an esteemed environmental scientist. I saw Moore interviewed a few years ago. He said when the Viet Nam War ended all those fanatical anti-war people needed a new cause. They took up environmentalism as their new war and ran him out of Greenpeace because he was not radical. Oh, Dr. Moore calls Global Warming really is Global Hysteria.
Is that the goof-off who now speaks for "Prager University"? I guess it would be fair to call him your prophet, then?
I'm sure his prophecy is a good one. Good enough to tell all the bleached coral, all the melted glaciers, all the northerly advancing tropical pests and diseases (including those killing off our pollinators - AS IF industrial society needed such a thing as a "food supply" anyway), that they're wrong. Yep. Nature is wrong. It's a guy with an agenda who's right. And why? Because he's anti-the-other-people's-agenda. Yep, opposing an agenda surely makes that agenda the right one. And fuck nature and all that it's undergoing now anyway. Even those bees, corals, rotting trees, melting tundra have an agenda. They are not objective.
They only people we can trust are the coal/oil/gas industry. They are the only ones with no agenda. Obviously.
So what do you do when evidence appears that directly reverses the expected prediction which a theory is based on.
Just one of many examples:
NASA says the Antarctic ice is actually increasing not decreasing, and this evidence was "unexpected". What do you do, ignore, discount, or deny?
There are plenty more of these "surprises". It doesn't completely disprove the hypothesis, but is arrogance, or the stifling of dissent or skepticism, or even firing people or refusing to listen to them really scientific based and rational, or is it more like some kind of religious intolerance?
Rhythm and Balls said...
Right. But denying that humans impact the environment
And this is literally the sentence that leads you right off the rails and then reading the rest of your hyperbolic, arm waving, circle-running, sky-is-falling, beclowning screeds is why you cannot be taken seriously on this topic at all. No one is denying that humans don't have an impact on their environment. Humans live an environment, of course they will have an impact. However, what you term as impact and what I and many other terms as impact is universes away from each other.
Your irrational blather and all-over-the-fucking-place post-after-post is proof positive that you are neither qualified to even discuss this topic, much less have a rational grasp on the subject because you simply do not. And your surface fluff emotional textual weeping proves it.
You're a fucking nut job in this regard and on this subject. You prove the point that your leftist ideology has turned you into a demented heap.
Do you realize that even the IPCC does not accept your hyperbolic fear mongering, and they're in it for the money, and money is really tempting to lie for. So if you do it with nothing really to gain, then I can only assume your religion provides for everlasting life if you just believe.
In 2012 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. In their latest assessment report (2013), IPCC scientists concluded that they had only “low confidence” that “damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity” as a result of global warming."
The 2013 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concluded the same, asserting that “in no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.
But even with this self-admitted skepticism, some people need to destroy anyone who is not of the church:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/latest-chapter-in-climate-mccarthyism.php
Rhythm and Balls said...
Yep. It's just too hard to measure whether blooms are sprouting earlier each year, or whether tropical parasites are spreading northward to more vegetation (and bees! - who needs them!
Again, this sentence is indicative of the corrosive nature of your ideology. It has left you mentally deficient and frankly, defunct, and incapable of rational thought. It's turned you into a ranting rage monster that is devoid of any actual facts and instead relies on hyperbole and hysteria to make your case.
Also, measuring blooms and/or parasitic migration patterns are micro-scalar to closed system. These types of measurements are and can be consistent within the context of the smaller systems they are being measured under. I was referring to large, atmospheric, global patterns of input not from these simple systems but from all climatological systems which are open ended loops. Measurements of plants and parasites are close looped and much smaller systems. Until all systems can be modeled, patterned, and measured, and with peer reviewed verifiable results via the scientific method or a scientific method, then it's all pure conjecture and scaremongering, something you are really good at. A fail overall, but you sure do excel at it. Proof of that is above me for all to read. So you can take any notion of 'scientific consensus' in the study of 'climate change' and wipe your ass with it. It's about that significant.
Of course us skeptics and agnostic hear all the evidence and claims that support the theory, because it's announced like the second coming on Sunday morning televangelist TV and it comes from virtually every outlet of the media, but I have to assume based on what they say that the true believers get very little exposure to the contrary evidence, and when they do, it's presented as satire and mocking. Consequently, the learning is restricted, the mind closed, the possibilities limited. I guess under those conditions tolerance of other views is unlikely to be welcome.
Cut to the chase. The difference between what I wrote and Bags$/Meth-heads' blather is that:
A. If AGW is wrong and we proceed as if it were correct:
We'll have incentivized the development of inevitable, superior, and typically less easily monopolized energy resources.
B. If AGW is right and we proceed as if it weren't:
1. We'll have wreaked whatever untold havoc on the same climate/planetary and agricultural system that has created the conditions for the same flourishing of human civilization as it has developed over the last 10,000 years.
2. We'll finally have the kind of evidence conservatives require to admit what everyone already knew: That atmospheric composition affects climate on earth no less than it does on the lead-melting surface of Venus (which is hotter than Mercury).
3. The oil/gas/coal industries will have profited handsomely off this experiment and the ardent supporters it had in Bags of Gaseous $ and Meth-Head.
Sounds like Option A is a better and more cautious bet than Option B. But then, I'm not beholden to the religious beliefs that demand I rule out any economically prosperous future other than one relying on the old fossil fuels industries. And I also don't believe that money buys truth.
But Bags$ and Methie do.
So there you have it.
I think there's a perfectly good reason why the snow/ice mass is increasing in Antarctica and it's consistent with Global Warming. Nobody wants to listen to crackpots though.
Of course us skeptics and agnostic hear all the evidence and claims that support the theory, because it's announced like the second coming on Sunday morning televangelist TV and it comes from virtually every outlet of the media, but I have to assume based on what they say that the true believers get very little exposure to the contrary evidence, and when they do, it's presented as satire and mocking.
Like I said, that's because it's a HUGE bet you're playing with the perfect physical conditions for human civilization as if it were not big thing. Small potatoes to you, you say. But others recognize that it's not the sort of gamble they want to play. And for what? Shilling for the fossil fuels shouldn't have to come at such a steep potential (and yes, unquantified) price. But it's the gamble you feel you should be able to make on behalf of the rest of civilization. A civilization that you might not care all that much about, but that others are perfectly justified in caring for.
Some unknown outcomes are trivial things worth taking a gamble on. What if I wear this tie today over that tie? Maybe I'll try a different route home from work. Who knows what the outcome will be, the difference doesn't matter all that much. This is not one of them. This is one that if you're wrong you'll have a whole lot more to answer for. I say anyone whose house goes under should get to skin an AGW-denier alive, but I guess I don't value the virtue of your denying his concern for his future as much as you do.
Questions I have:
1) What is the ideal average global temperature?
2) How will we know when the global warming problem is "solved"?
3) How long do we continue our abatement measures? (taxing, regulating, ostracizing, firing, starving, and holding third world people in poverty)
4) How many false positives do the models get before they are invalidated?
5) If AGW turns out to be a fraud, what should the punishment be for lazy science, lies and intolerance? The unnecessary damages will be astronomical.
6) Will we have the trials at the Hague?
Bags of Gaseous $ throws out six hypotheticals so that the known conditions allowing for global civilizations can be experimented with until he himself is personally satisfied that a result has been achieved with the clarity necessary for his own conclusions.
Don't worry about the Hague. In the Venusian future (without bees) that you hope for, it will be a Mad Max world. And it will be the strong that steal your money and gas. You can kiss being able to bribe and buy people off goodbye.
I'm sure you'll find it a very enlightening social experiment.
Thanks Ritmo. Your last two comments admit that it's just faith, a belief, a hunch. So why all the hate? It's downright fundamentalist. If you lose the faith someday, ISIS would be a perfect rebound religion for you. They believe real hard and hate apostates too.
Who is really doing the experimenting? I'm sure that controlling all the physical, economic, and social variables in the solar system is well within the capabilities of your priests.
The idiocy required to conflate distinguishing levels of risk with religious belief is so stupid that anyone holding it is at about the same intellectual level as those running and fighting for ISIS.
But then, Bags O Cash$, like ed, and like Trump, doesn't believe in taking responsibility for the things he says. He finds taking responsibility for what he says to be a form of tyranny.
We'll save you seat at the Hague - right up front.
I'm sure that controlling all the physical, economic, and social variables in the solar system is well within the capabilities of your priests.
Again.
Only an idiot would confuse "controlling" an artificial variable with being able to measure the difference between what happens when it's held steady versus what happens when it is allowed to grow without pause.
We'll save you seat at the Hague - right up front.
Still not able to take responsibility for what he says. Or to distinguish between a serious comment affecting most people's futures and a joke.
This is why the party he supports is left caught between a rich, loudmouthed, irresponsible, quadruply bankrupted idiot and a creationism-believing, shoot-the-guy-behind-the-counter-advising, skilled-hand-eye-coordinating idiot.
Bags can't control his mouth but he wants to dictate policy for everyone else.
I think this is why Republicans don't win presidential elections any more.
Balls - you sound nuts.
Bagoh's arguments are rational and reasoned. You sound like a religious fanatic. You show up and prove the point. Good job.
Hillary will never be president. She's corrupt and people hate her.
@ Bagoh
1) What is the ideal average global temperature?
2) How will we know when the global warming problem is "solved"?
3) How long do we continue our abatement measures? (taxing, regulating, ostracizing, firing, starving, and holding third world people in poverty)
4) How many false positives do the models get before they are invalidated?
5) If AGW turns out to be a fraud, what should the punishment be for lazy science, lies and intolerance? The unnecessary damages will be astronomical.
6) Will we have the trials at the Hague?
tap tap... still waiting for know-it-all genius religious fanatic to provide highly inspirational divine knowledge.
That's because you're ignorant and didn't read them. The reason you think it "sounds" nuts to make a less agriculturally risky gamble is because you think food grows in frozen food packets in Walmart, that people don't need land to live on, and that planetary conditions are impermeable to the actions and chemistry of the life that is a part of them. The bubble in which you live really is that thick and impenetrable and your reliance on image over substance that far advanced. You know about as much biology or geology as the next trailer park resident. Go vote for the person who will dumb down knowledge for you, April. Knowing too much is the definition of scary.
Your church teaches you strange things. I'd try to get out. Free yourself.
Hillary will never be president. She's corrupt and people hate her.
This is a combination blithe assertion, emotion and prediction all in one. Another Republican not taking responsibility for what she says -- MUCH LIKE SARAH PALIN DID! At least Romney asked for $10,000 bucks when it came to speculation. How much do you think Fortune Teller April will pay up if she's wrong?
Nothing. Being a Republican means not taking responsibility for what you say.
As if all that weren't enough, April is so dumb that she forgot to consider that whatever Hillary's negatives, any one of the likely Republican nominee's will be worse. America is tired of stupid leadership. Even if that stupid leadership comes in the form of Trump calling everyone else stupid.
Do some reading. The Republicans are dominating every level of government right now except the Presidency, which they will likely take this time as well. The domination is at historical levels throughout national, state and local levels. Democrats have N.Y and CA., and that's about it.
I know, I know. It's just facts, but you believe.
Being a democrat means falling in line behind a money-grubbing corrupt crony. So what's your point?
Balls, you make a lot of stupid assumptions about others that are 100% incorrect. Which tells us all we need to know about you.
tap tap... still waiting for know-it-all genius religious fanatic to provide highly inspirational divine knowledge.
Supernatural inspiration isn't necessary for those of us who, unlike you, don't hate life on this planet the way it is.
I know one thing for sure, Ritmo. All that straw you're burning is not gonna help your carbon footprint.
Do some reading. The Republicans are dominating every level of government right now except the Presidency, which they will likely take this time as well. The domination is at historical levels throughout national, state and local levels. Democrats have N.Y and CA., and that's about it.
I know, I know. It's just facts, but you believe.
It's also a fact that if you pay a man to believe something, he probably will.
But you lack the self-control, responsibility and independence to consider that very basic fact.
I know one thing for sure, Ritmo.
Be honest. You know even less than one thing.
Balls, you make a lot of stupid assumptions about others that are 100% incorrect. Which tells us all we need to know about you.
What's the most advanced concept regarding biology or geology that you ever learned?
I think saying someone hates life on this planet is what we call "jumping the shark", which I know is insulting to us capitalist sharks. Can we get a trigger warning next time?
Bagoh - at least Ritmo can kabob his red herring over his straw-man fire. Nice & crispy.
"What's the most advanced concept regarding biology or geology that you ever learned?"
The law of holes.
I think saying someone hates life on this planet is what we call "jumping the shark", which I know is insulting to us capitalist sharks. Can we get a trigger warning next time?
Sure. Tell me your greatest expenditure of time, effort or personal finance that went in contributtion to a conservationist cause (bonus points for revealing what it was) and I'll extend to you the veneer of respectability commensurate to what it actually consisted of.
Anything else is just your motor-mouthed verbal-moral irresponsibility and lack of integrity talking. But that's ok. Republicans like selling out their integrity to the guy promising to somehow save them by saving the balance sheet of the nearest billionaire.
Bagoh - at least Ritmo can kabob his red herring over his straw-man fire. Nice & crispy.
Still feeling pretty offended (butt-hurt?) over being asked to reveal what you actually know on the subject, eh April?
The subject of this thread is: "How much is liberalism like a religion?"
You've answered the question. Thanks.
Balls - We can see you are spinning in over-drive attempting to offend us, but it's not working. You're just making as ass of yourself. Again - perfect.
The subject of this thread is: "How much is liberalism like a religion?"
Um, because it takes sciences like biology and geology seriously no matter how little April and her conservative friends bother to know about them?
"Tell me your greatest expenditure of time, effort or personal finance that went in contribution to a conservationist cause "
I would say, that it's this conversation, and if I can get you to renounce your AGW religion, it would all be worth it. I may not be at your level of buying 4 star meals for the homeless, but I do care about whether people think I'm a good person, and not just a poseur. I really really do.
Balls - We can see you are spinning in over-drive attempting to offend us, but it's not working. You're just making as ass of yourself. Again - perfect.
A response worthy of Trump.
All the narcissism, all the elevation of image over substance, all the ignorance to what was actually said.
April, your about as much a stickler for details as Trump is. But at least he could possibly mean it when he says he'll have his lawyers look into it and get back to you. You OTOH don't even have that luxury. But you do the tantrums well. Trump boycotts FOX for "mistreating" him and you boycott science class. My my how far those egos extend. If only those egos were powerful enough to keep the planet in good working condition. Maybe they are.
Please point out where, in this thread or any other, I ever claimed to be a scientist... or an expert in biology?
So Balls - without insulting us, tell us everything YOU know about biology and geology as it pertains to the certainty of global warming.
Tantrums? Do you actually listen to yourself?
...AGW religion...
Again, you lie.
The 8:46 comment said, here's a breakdown of the pros and cons for each premise (whether AGW is right or wrong) and the consequences of what happens if either side experiences a status quo response or a more attentive response.
It was an entirely logical breakdown. Nothing religious about it.
Of course, you couldn't impeach a thing in it - but that's because you can't handle being honest about the stakes that both sides have in whether their own argument is right or wrong.
If you were a more successful businessman, you'd get publicists to have these conversations. Because the way you do it completely lacks integrity. You seem to relish coming off as someone who, like any Republican, will say anything. Just for reaction. Backing up your word is something you recoil from as nakedly as Don Trump does.
Please point out where, in this thread or any other, I ever claimed to be a scientist... or an expert in biology?
That's the whole point. You don't have to be an expert.
You just have to stop using your ignorance as an excuse for believing that no knowledge is the better informed argument.
--------------
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
He's what your breakdown amounts to:
I'm gonna start shooting through my front door, because I heard a noise outside, and I think it might be a burglar. If I'm right, I'll save us all, if I'm wrong, well, at least I get in some shooting practice.
Not every noise is a burglar, and taking serious action has serious consequences. Be careful young buck. You have much to learn, grasshopper.
The pollinators responsible for 90% of agriculture dying off, the coral sea life bleaching, tundra melting, tropical diseases of plants and people spreading ever northward, glaciers melting - and you minimize all that to "a noise".
Keep thinking in metaphors. The significance of facts clearly eludes you.
So Ritmo, considering that there are millions of ignorant heretics like us, and that most of the world is starving for energy, agriculture, and economic advancement, do you really think we can change the climate of the earth precisely as we want to by passing laws and taxing a few comfortable people in a few wealthy countries? If you doubt it, then do you really want to cause all the economic and human harm anyway just to try to fix something that might be a problem, but you know damned well you are not sure about?
Do you realize that the planet was warmer in the past many times, and we still have honey and coral. 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. The average life-span of a species is 10 million years. Are you clutching your pearls yet? Relax, 86.6% of current species are undiscovered.
I repeat, the planet is not unprecedentedly warm. In fact, this climate is relatively common. How can it be causing unprecedented disaster? The IPCC doesn't even claim that. You're an extremist even among your fundamentalist sect.
That's the kind of goalpost shifting though that a dishonest interlocutor loves. When you're not busy expressing doubt about AGW, you're expressing doubt about doing anything effective about it. When you're not busy expressing doubt about doing anything effective about it, you're expressing fear of being victimized. When you're not expressing fear of being victimized you're expressing fear of overly harsh, wrongheaded "remedies". These are a wide variety of positions to take, and precisely what a lawyer does to prevent concession on any single issue - as they all detract from his overall agenda.
So I'm sure I have perfect answers on any of those, but I'm sure I have some. Suffice it to say they can all be discussed, debated and permitted to progress.
But yes, I am sure that there is a better argument for doing all that than for playing interference against it on every conceivable level. Or at least, a more honest argument.
The only honest position is "We don't know enough yet." Anything else either way is irresponsible.
Do you realize that the planet was warmer in the past many times, and we still have honey and coral. 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. The average life-span of a species is 10 million years. Are you clutching your pearls yet? Relax, 86.6% of current species are undiscovered.
I repeat, the planet is not unprecedentedly warm. In fact, this climate is relatively common. How can it be causing unprecedented disaster? The IPCC doesn't even claim that. You're an extremist even among your fundamentalist sect.
Do you realize (or simply refuse to accept) that the 10,000 years of recent history is a special case that we might be more interested in preserving than times when people didn't grow as much as they have been since then? You bring up agriculture earlier, as if AGW wouldn't impact it negatively, and then revert to a comparison at geologic time-points when human agriculture not only didn't exist, but probably wasn't possible. Is that really the geology you'd be comfortable with trying to see if humanity can live in?
There have been other great species die-offs in the past. The difference is the current one seems to be of our own making and will leave us with a form of ecology that human agriculture isn't familiar with and did not evolve to adapt itself to.
The only honest position is "We don't know enough yet." Anything else either way is irresponsible.
No. The honest thing to admit is that "enough" is hell-raisingly subjective and people disagree incredibly widely on the definition of "enough".
What are your thoughts on the seriousness of pollinator die-off? Have you even read about it? Do you realize why that would be important... to agriculture?
Do you realize that the 10 million year geologic scale you reference as natural encompasses planetary environments that precluded agriculture?
Hell, grasses and cereals didn't even evolve until very recently - evolutionarily speaking. 10 million years starts to put us in environments when it wouldn't have even been possible to grow grain. You really think being cautious about that is an over-reaction?
Well, then what kind of agriculture are you proposing?
It has been warmer and colder than now multiple times just over the last 3 thousand years alone, yet the bees and the coral and the agriculture remain. In fact, the worst historical eras are during the colder times and the most productive economically and culturally are during the warmer ones. Are you really arguing these points while being this uninformed?
https://i0.wp.com/www.viewzone2.com/globalwarming.jpg?zoom=2
Sorry, 10:29 should have said --
So I'm sure I DON'T have perfect answers on any of those...
Inadvertently left out the bolded word above.
Regrets -
I gotta go now, but I do love ya, even though your religion is stranger than a Mormon Scientologist. One of us will come around, eventually.
It has been warmer and colder than now multiple times just over the last 3 thousand years alone, yet the bees and the coral and the agriculture remain. In fact, the worst historical eras are during the colder times and the most productive economically and culturally are during the warmer ones. Are you really arguing these points while being this uninformed?
I'm not uninformed. I know climates have shifted over and over again throughout the last 3 thousand let alone 10 thousand years. It's just that these shifts have been smaller than the shifts of the last 10 million or 100 million or billion years that you referenced before narrowing the frame of your goalpost shifting back into a workable timeframe that included the agricultural revolution. So the problem is that we don't know if AGW would be significant enough to shift us more widely than those fluctuations that we were able to live with more recently. And even then, I'm not sure that those shifts were perfect - agriculture itself is a fickle thing - even with the smaller shifts that humanity's survived with lately - if not perfectly. Famines have still occurred, regardless.
Either that, or I'm sure there's a middle ground... somewhere. Take care -
Your most conspicuous Mormon Scientologist.
Getting it bass-ackwards, that's what Titus would call a "log-of-dias"
My translation: words of the day.
It's not the ideology but what you do with it.
Some religions are religions... what is being described approaches "cult." The difference between a religion and a cult isn't actually the doctrine or ideology but the control mechanisms applied, primarily within but also those projected on others. It's not "this is what we believe" and it's not even "you must believe this, too, because we're right and it's important," but the methods applied when someone does disagree or dissent and particularly WHO they disagree with or dissent from. It's not "lets talk about why we teach this" but "how dare you ask questions?"
The danger of non-religious ideologies becoming religious or even cult-like is in the fact that the possibility, much less the danger, is completely and utterly denied by everyone involved. Sure, you can be a vegan or an atheist or an environmentalist or anything at all and not be "religious" about your ideology, but is IS an ideology and a whole lot of people ARE utter fundy crazies and absolutely *religious* about how they *practice* their life choices and no amount of pointing and shouting "But there is no GOD!" is going to change that even a little bit.
Are there non-religious liberals? Oh, absolutely. Non-religious climate activists? Absolutely. Non-religious vegans? Non-religious atheists? Sure there are. But there are others who put the hardest core fundy fire and brimstone sandwich-board corner evangelist to shame because you ARE going to hell if you question their truth.
The problem with the Asimov quote is this... if a person excuses all excess because they are "right" and they have "facts" and can not, CAN NOT, get their mind around the idea that the person over there also believes they are right and believes they have facts it all becomes nothing more than Might Makes Right.
Not everything is true and not all opinions are equal and one does not get just make stuff up but if "I have science and history on my side there fore I can MAKE YOU give up your ignorance" it is no different at all than "Hell is real and there fore I must MAKE YOU accept salvation."
If your adherence to your ideology requires you to attack those who reject it and requires you to use intimidation, threats to livlihood, and the force of the State to accomplish your goals... the "goodness" of the goals is irrelevant.
But hell is real, and so I must kill heretics...
But I'm right so what I do isn't oppression... that guy deserved to loose his job but having someone threaten mine should lead all nice people to agree that anything I've ever said must be *extra* true.
On the Right Side of History after all... and Truth has a liberal slant.
Ritmo is a comment juggernaut.
Have you noticed when many people reject organized mainstream religions, they are often receptive to the most wacky new age crap out there?
R&B, the shift in climate 10,000 years ago went from glaciers a mile plus covering Canada and the Northern US to generally what we have now. The shift in the last 30 years has been about a degree F and that has leveled off (not increased) over the last 15 years. I don't discount humans play a roll in recent climate change but I know the major shifts are all caused by fluctuations in sun light and other major forces mostly beyond our control.
To spend trillions of dollars on this at the expense of far more pressing problems is the biggest swindle perpetrated on the planet. Fifty years from now people will look back at this and say what in the hell we're they thinking... There are a lot of people making a lot of money off climate change, but it is not improving the enviroment or the lives of people on this planet (other than the small minority getting rich off it).
Do you ever notice that Global warming alarmists never want to discuss pollution?
They are obsessed with CO2 - but NOT at all concerned about any of the other toxic crap. Then they go to Walmart to buy all their made in china crapola.
AGW is the single largest example in history of:
bad science
corruption
cronyism
fraud
hypocrisy
Fen's Law.
It would be interesting if someone could add up all the CO2 emissions caused by the AGW industry, it's proponents, and the unnecessary travel, accommodations, and meals they use to "fight CO2".
ndspinelli said...
Ritmo is a comment juggernaut.
Verbosity, bombastity, and intellectual dishonesty all lead to a lot of typed words without saying a damned thing. I intentionally left this thread just to see what I would come back to. I was not disappointed. His utter wrongness on this very subject is a sight to behold in it's breadth and scope and I lulz at him every time he brings up Trump as the very example Mr. Balls really is. You can't ask for a better jester.
For the record, while people and 'scientists' like Ritmo have glommed onto CO2 being the culprit of warming, they utterly neglect the two real culprits of heat capture and retention in the atmosphere, Water Vapor and Methane. These two components vastly outnumber CO2 emissions and particulate saturation with respect to their quantity and their densities in the atmosphere. CO2 doesn't even come close.
These fools cite the 'greenhouse' effect as a function of a closed system neglecting the fact that a greenhouse is purposely built for such a function; to trap warmth for certain plant growth to occur, but also that the oxygen/CO2 cycle can be regulated properly in this closed system. The atmosphere is not a closed system and it is regulated only up to our knowledge of its function at this time. These people use CO2 particulate counts as the delineator for warming. They are utterly and vacuously wrong. Now, while there are systems on this planet that are temperature sensitive, Mr. Balls bemoans his fear mongering on reef bleaching and bee disappearances as an indicator that 'something' is wrong with nature and why 'warming' is creating such havoc. Also, Mr. Balls and his really deep intellectual prowess on the subject of the Great Bee Die Off, is about as educated on the subject as a 5 year old is on theoretical particle physics.
What Mr. Balls is ignorant on is the fact that some unduly harsh winters have contributed to a large die off due to lack of food reserves and poor nutrition within large swarms. Also, there is a particular parasitic mite that feeds off bees blood that somehow migrated to North America in the 80's. Certain pesticides have been a problem, but what is also not mentioned is that there are techniques that beekeepers who stock large apiaries are employing to restore their bee numbers.
Be that as it may, Mr. Balls fear mongered numerous rage posts go a long way into why he has relegated himself into being nothing more than a marginalized wolf crying fear herder that can never really be taken seriously anymore. He did it to himself.
I don't discount humans play a roll in recent climate change but I know the major shifts are all caused by fluctuations in sun light and other major forces mostly beyond our control.
Tell that to the Venusians. The implied insistence (it isn't even formally proposed as a suggestion, but insisted) that atmosphere doesn't play a major role in climate regulation can't be taken seriously.
The "15-year" retreat is also a myth. The warming is instead just going into the oceans rather than into the air. (Read the WaPo link). That's a huge problem. I mean, it is if you think that sea life is important to civilization. Which anyone sensible does.
The comparison to more drastic changes before agriculture and settled habitation and less drastic changes (so far) after agriculture and settled habitation is a false comparison because... Hey, agriculture and settled habitation is the whole point of what's worth preserving.
The analogy would be like fiddling with the plumbing, heating and electrical wiring in your house, and telling the owner not to worry too much because, hey, before that house was built, the land still existed. And it was pretty land.
The skeptics and deniers don't seem to understand that apples to oranges comparisons apart from what the climate of modern human history means to us are not helpful. No, we don't need to recreate the climate of the precambrian or mesozoic and imply that human civilization will be fine just because those environments were fine for trilobites or dinosaurs.
Is it asking too much to not confuse "all conditions experienced by the planet as a whole" with "the conditions for human civilization"?
I don't know. Maybe it is.
The problem with the Asimov quote is this... if a person excuses all excess because they are "right" and they have "facts" and can not, CAN NOT, get their mind around the idea that the person over there also believes they are right and believes they have facts it all becomes nothing more than Might Makes Right.
Get back to me when you learn to differentiate a fact from an opinion.
Yes, there is a difference between stronger, sounder, better logic and weaker, flimsier, worse logic.
The whole point of your perspective/posturing is to say that there are things we don't know. Yes, I understand that. There are always things that we don't know. But that's why conservatism of the American, ignorance-is-underrated version is not applicable to science. Science is about what we do know.
So if you want to keep insisting that the things we don't know (Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns") will mitigate the things that we do know that we are doing, then you need to have that discussion with the divine, supernatural, omniscient Creator Being. After all, that's the only entity appropriate for discussions of "unknown unknowns". Who knows? Maybe He/She/It will even corroborate your religious insistence that concern and action to avoid unknown consequences is WRONG.
There are lots of unknowns that aren't worth trying out. I daresay that changing planetary conditions known to affect how humanity came to be might very well be one of them.
The atmosphere is not a closed system
Are you for real? Where's the moronic atmosphere-replenenishment system that the aliens are using to pump nitrogen into it? Also, where on your fictive atmosphere-recalibrator is the knob for taking the GHGs back out of it and into the ground again? Again, all nonsensical presumptions required for your cartoonish objections of the Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown" variety to make any sense.
"...and it is regulated only up to our knowledge of its function at this time.
No. Wrong again, Mr. Rumsfeld. The science of how the planet's systems work is not contingent upon what we don't know that we don't know. You are inventing unknown unknowns that you can't even name. Despite your religious faith that they must exist... somewhere.... and to the benefit of the fossil fuels industries and AGW deniers. This is all faith that you hope for more explanations that we just haven't come up with yet. Faith not unlike those of vaccine deniers who insist that there must be something beyond what we know regarding the science of immunization.
These people use CO2 particulate counts as the delineator for warming. They are utterly and vacuously wrong. Now, while there are systems on this planet that are temperature sensitive...
"There are"? Where do you come up with this crap? EVERYTHING is temperature sensitive, the question is just by how much. If you disagree try seeing what happens at around absolute 0.
And you can't answer "by how much" because - once again - as ever - you rely on the Rumsfeldian unknown unknown and saying that because you don't know "how much" will be a problem, or whether we will hit that threshold, then it's not worth being concerned about.
Again, this is all just an argument from ignorance that says, "What we don't know, WON'T hurt anyone." And then, from there, you proceed to pretend that no one knows ANYTHING about any of this. Well, isn't that incredibly convenient? Pretend nothing is known, declare that what isn't known can't hurt people (like when the Romans DIDN'T KNOW that lead poisoning was not good, I guess) and go from there.
It's the worst reasoning any mind's ever come up with. Which is why it takes a lot of money, a lot of organization and a lot of political power to do. No single mind could believe a propaganda conspiracy that ridiculous. On the contrary, it requires a very significant effort. By some very dedicated people.
And we know who those people are.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Are you for real? Where's the moronic atmosphere-replenenishment system that the aliens are using to pump nitrogen into it? Also, where on your fictive atmosphere-recalibrator is the knob for taking the GHGs back out of it and into the ground again? Again, all nonsensical presumptions required for your cartoonish objections of the Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown" variety to make any sense.
Hey, you fucking moron, the atmosphere is very much an open system, you dumb, daft motherfucker. First of all the atmosphere does leak very slowly into space, that by definition itself makes it open. Secondly, you stupid fuck, it's an open system with respect to energy and energy exchange, receiving and emitting energy, again, by definition an open system. Thirdly, you ignorant chode, the atmosphere is also open to mass from within, say from the form of evaporation, and without in the form of incoming particulates and gases from outside of the atmosphere.
Could you be any more ignorant of the most basic of scientific facts, you unmitigated douche? Seriously, the rest of your rage fueled bullshit isn't even worth replying to in the face of your sheer idiocy on the subject that I've just now addressed. You can't even get that right you fucking retard. Go learn something, come back when you've learned something.
I showed your stupidity to a couple of friends I work with here who are actual scientists and we all lol'ed at you. You are being laughed at by people who aren't even related to this blog or the bevy of shit-words you've excreted. You're a joke.
Well, being a Republican, I understand that you're a natural liar - so of course you'd pretend that the negligibly minimal leakage into space was significant or that evaporation/condensation and energy exchange had to do with changing the composition of how much CO2 actually gets in but doesn't go back out. I mean, that's what we mean by "open", right? Putting in things that don't go back out until they rise and rise and rise without falling. Yep, that's what "open" means. Open ONE-WAY!!!!!!
The fact that you have nothing better to do than to show "friends" at work blogpost comments is pretty pathetic. Talk about a joke! If this is how you spend your work time you should be fired, first of all. And if you don't have better friends than co-workers, you need to get a life. Finally, you need to get your jollies in a less pathetic way. A blog is a hobby, not entertainment. Even for douchey people who think ONE-WAY TRANSFER and OPEN are SYNONYMS! That's why they call roundtrip airline tickets "open return". Because you can go there but not back. Oh, wait...
Go ask Jesus to teach you how to be less of an angry, unfulfilled hypocritical liar. I think you tried that before, but it only worked for a few minutes. Your decency is something you only wear for as long as the season makes it fashionable, Ib.
And yes, I get that CO2 leaves the atmosphere, as well.
But I'm talking about in numbers to equal its entry, which it doesn't.
I mean, you'd think an engineer would understand that. It's like saying that oil can be put into an engine and can drain from it so why worry about HOW MUCH is actually in there?
Well, I guess for the same reason that numbers matter. Amounts matter.
Like the amount of money Angry Baby-Face Bird Head loses his employer when he wastes time on blogs instead of working.
His work ethic is as poor as his critical thinking skills.
Sad.
But love him anyway. I mean, Jesus does. Or at least, he tries to.
It's just that he doesn't appreciate Jesus enough to at least try to be a decent and honest person in return.
Maybe he doesn't like himself.
April, That's one of my rants. When huge new oil reserves were found the left started having panic attacks. Fuck pollution. Fuck recycling. Fuck restoring wetlands. It's GLOBAL WARMING 24/7.
Global warming = tax rape. Global warming = control. All While the elites like Al Gore and his private 737 jet, parked at the Jackson Hole Airport, laugh all the way to the bank.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Well, being a Republican, I understand that you're a natural liar - so of course you'd pretend that the negligibly minimal leakage into space was significant or that evaporation/condensation and energy exchange had to do with changing the composition of how much CO2 actually gets in but doesn't go back out. I mean, that's what we mean by "open", right? Putting in things that don't go back out until they rise and rise and rise without falling. Yep, that's what "open" means. Open ONE-WAY!!!!!!
The fact that you have nothing better to do than to show "friends" at work blogpost comments is pretty pathetic. Talk about a joke! If this is how you spend your work time you should be fired, first of all. And if you don't have better friends than co-workers, you need to get a life. Finally, you need to get your jollies in a less pathetic way. A blog is a hobby, not entertainment. Even for douchey people who think ONE-WAY TRANSFER and OPEN are SYNONYMS! That's why they call roundtrip airline tickets "open return". Because you can go there but not back. Oh, wait...
Go ask Jesus to teach you how to be less of an angry, unfulfilled hypocritical liar. I think you tried that before, but it only worked for a few minutes. Your decency is something you only wear for as long as the season makes it fashionable, Ib.
November 4, 2015 at 9:22 PM
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
And yes, I get that CO2 leaves the atmosphere, as well.
But I'm talking about in numbers to equal its entry, which it doesn't.
I mean, you'd think an engineer would understand that. It's like saying that oil can be put into an engine and can drain from it so why worry about HOW MUCH is actually in there?
Well, I guess for the same reason that numbers matter. Amounts matter.
Like the amount of money Angry Baby-Face Bird Head loses his employer when he wastes time on blogs instead of working.
His work ethic is as poor as his critical thinking skills.
Sad.
But love him anyway. I mean, Jesus does. Or at least, he tries to.
It's just that he doesn't appreciate Jesus enough to at least try to be a decent and honest person in return.
Maybe he doesn't like himself.
That's right. Go back to the rote nothing you are. When presented with the facts that destroy your idea of reality, guess what you respond only one way, the way you always do, like I just quoted above. It's your only way. Nope, you can't refute science and actual facts, but you sure can pretend to make it up as you go along thinking that somehow you actually know what the fuck you are talking about. But as usual you don't. Again.
Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Listen kid, just stick to what you know, medical coding or cleaning bed pans or whatever fucking else you believe your career is. Also, what I do on my time at work is none of your concern, Joke Boy, but I don't really have to tell you that since, you know, I actually have friends to show your idiocy too and then laugh about it later.
Facts and science include numbers, you raging, angry, bloated, anti-Christian Mid-East dildo. No one gets to say that a theoretical amount of something "destroys" the fact that it's not enough to matter. That is, unless he has nothing to do at work and needs to jerk off his co-workers as if they were his friends. (Probably his only friends). Talk about a career. At least I'm involved in what I do.
Well, maybe they are your friends. Fellow, angry, nerdy, sexually frustrated wankers need to stick together. They seem to aggregate toward the same types of workplaces so maybe that was the ideal meeting place.
Even you're not as angry as you'd like to pretend you are.
You know, I wrote something in response to your last two posts and then I deleted it. You know why? Because after reading your posts, it dawned on me that you don't really know anything at all. Also for the record, and as some others here may already know, I am a christian. To call me anti-christian is just wrong and I wish you hadn't have done that. Frankly, I'm not sure why you said that other than to see if it would get a reaction.
Also, if you want to impale yourself on the climate change sword, please be my guest. I could care less other than only proving your illustration of the hysteria you bring to the game. One day and I hope it will be very soon, the climate change scam will be admitted to en masse (because right now, it's a battle to show why it already is) and then I wonder if you are going to be left gobsmacked or find the next human cause planetary holocaust to tie your balls to.
All that was done here was prove that you are an aberrant leftist zealot/fanatic who is willing to say or do anything to promote the religion of leftism to others whether they like it or not. No one here needed to out you, the thread topic alone lured you like a dog whistle and you did the rest. Well, either way, enjoy your hate sucker.
Ritmo, You really wasted a lot of words here. You could have tried to make the argument much more succinctly, and intelligently, but the hysteria approach does require a lot of hand waving and yelling.
Post a Comment