Poll: Science doubters say world is warming

Dec 14, 2012 by Seth Borenstein
In this Wednesday, Aug. 8, 2012 file photo, a dry corn field receives some rain from a passing thunderstorm near Blair, Neb. Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds. Belief and worry about climate change are inching up among Americans in general, but concern is growing faster among people who don't often trust scientists on the environment. In follow-up interviews, some of those doubters said they believe their own eyes as they've watched thermometers rise, New York City subway tunnels flood, polar ice melt and Midwestern farm fields dry up. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)

Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

But only 45 percent of those surveyed think President Barack Obama will take major action to fight climate change in his second term.

Belief and worry about climate change are inching up among Americans in general, but concern is growing faster among people who don't often trust scientists on the environment. In follow-up interviews, some of those doubters said they believe their own eyes as they've watched thermometers rise, New York City subway tunnels flood, polar ice melt and Midwestern farm fields dry up.

The poll did not ask whether the recent Superstorm Sandy, which killed more than 100 people when it struck the New York City and New Jersey region in late October, had influenced their thinking.

Overall, 78 percent of those surveyed said they thought temperatures were rising and 80 percent called it a serious problem. That's up slightly from 2009, when 75 percent thought global warming was occurring and just 73 percent thought it was a serious problem. In general, U.S. belief in global warming, according to AP-GfK and other polls, has fluctuated over the years but has stayed between about 70 and 85 percent.

The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category.

Within that highly skeptical group, 61 percent now say temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years. That's a substantial increase from 2009, when the AP-GfK poll found that only 47 percent of those with little or no trust in scientists believed the world was getting warmer.

This is an important development because, often in the past, opinion about climate change doesn't move much in core groups—like those who deny it exists and those who firmly believe it's an alarming problem, said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University social psychologist and pollster. Krosnick, who consulted with The Associated Press on the poll questions, said the changes the poll shows aren't in the hard-core "anti-warming" deniers, but in the next group, who had serious doubts.

"They don't believe what the scientists say, they believe what the thermometers say," Krosnick said. "Events are helping these people see what scientists thought they had been seeing all along."

Phil Adams, a retired freelance photographer from North Carolina, said he was "fairly cynical" about scientists and their theories. But he believes very much in climate change because of what he's seen with his own eyes.

"Having lived for 67 years, we consistently see more and more changes based upon the fact that the weather is warmer," he said. "The seasons are more severe. The climate is definitely getting warmer."

"Storms seem to be more severe," he added. Nearly half, 49 percent, of those surveyed called global warming not just serious but "very serious," up from 42 percent in 2009. More than half, 57 percent, of those surveyed thought the U.S. government should do a great deal or quite a bit about global warming, up from 52 percent three years earlier.

Overall, the 78 percent who think temperatures are rising is not the highest percentage of Americans who have believed in climate change, according to AP polling. In 2006, less than a year after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, 85 percent thought temperatures were rising. The lowest point in the past 15 years for belief in warming was in December 2009, after some snowy winters and in the middle of an uproar about climate scientists' emails that later independent investigations found showed no manipulation of data.

Broken down by political party, 83 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans say the world is getting warmer. And 77 percent of independents say temperatures are rising. Among scientists who write about the issue in peer-reviewed literature, the belief in global warming is about 97 percent, according to a 2010 scientific study.

The AP-GfK poll was conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 3 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,002 adults nationwide. Results for the full sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points; the margin of error is larger for subgroups.

Explore further: Pharmaceuticals and the water-fish-osprey food web

3.9 /5 (18 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate change no longer tops US environment worries

Jul 03, 2012

Americans no longer see climate change as the world's number-one environmental issue, according to a public opinion poll released Tuesday amid an ongoing heat wave in much of the United States.

American opinion cools on global warming

Jan 27, 2010

Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

Survey: Environmental pessimism abounds

Apr 04, 2006

A Stanford University survey suggests most Americans are pessimistic about the state of the environment and want action taken to improve it.

Recommended for you

Pharmaceuticals and the water-fish-osprey food web

9 hours ago

Ospreys do not carry significant amounts of human pharmaceutical chemicals, despite widespread occurrence of these chemicals in water, a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Baylor University study finds. ...

User comments : 376

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarD
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2012
This is very bad news for Libertarians/Randites and the GOP.

This is good news for the Illuminati and Lucifer who from what I read on Conservative Blogs, will soon be appointed king of the world by the United Nations.

Just you watch... After the world ends later this month the Illuminati will make moves at the U.N. to ask the pope to install Lucifer as king. It's all written and explained in an invisible book that God gave Mitt Ronmey to read, along with some magic glasses and underwear.

Proof of these world changing facts can be found at Conservapedia.com

VendicarD
2.5 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2012
Oh. Forgot to call the denialist tards....

Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie....

Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie....
Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie....
Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie....
Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie....
Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie....
Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie....

They should be here any moment now..
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (29) Dec 14, 2012
To the extent climate change is occurring, the "proof" in the article is at best questionable The article says people "watched New York subway tunnels flood, polar ice melt and Midwestern farm fields dry up". In fact, the evidence that the "damage" from "Hurricane" Sandy was man made is significant if not conclusive. Certainly, in New Jersey, upscale neighborhoods with reservoirs stole lower lying property by opening their floodgates and inundating entire areas and leaving it to the "news" to blame it on storms. But note, not one person saw polar ice melt! They were only told it was melting! And there were no real overviews of farms drying up, only close-up pictures of single areas. In the picture at the beginning of the article, how could corn grow so tall if it wasn't getting water? It was allowed to wither to provide "proof". And, note, climate change is coming more from chemtrail doping of the air with weather control chemicals, not so much fossil fuels.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2012

"And, note, climate change is coming more from chemtrail doping of the air" - Julian

Calling the Tardies works every time....

Claudius
2.6 / 5 (33) Dec 14, 2012
This article underscores the fact that this whole AGW business is all about opinion, not science.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (23) Dec 14, 2012
polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all
I don't quite understand the editorialization of the headline. It's well documented, that the global warming is supported with 99,5% of peer-reviewed studies. Therefore these mainstream science doubters are actually in great agreement with mainstream science. It means, that this article is trying to create virtual reality and conflict, which actually doesn't exist.

In this connection I can just repeat, I don't think that the global warming is of anthropocentric origin - but it has literally geothermal roots and that the implementation of cold fusion findings is the only way, how to fight not only with global warming, but with economical and geopolitical crisis effectively.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2012
The so-called denialists often do behave like creationists with respect to mainstream science. Instead of pointing out the factual controversies of antropocentric model of global warming, they're trying to doubt the existence of global warming as a whole - which is somewhat silly approach. In addition, we should distinguish the antropocentric effects and natural effects of climate changes. The global warming is naturally connected with droughts and spreading of deserts, but the production of aerosols with people may influent the droughts way more, than the other climate changes. There is no reason, why the heating of oceans shouldn't release the water vapor and humidity into atmosphere. That is to say, I don't believe, that the people are heating the Earth with production of carbon dioxide (or at least it's not dominant effect), but I'm not so sure about droughts generated with aerosol pollution.
dschlink
4.8 / 5 (17) Dec 14, 2012
This article underscores the fact that this whole AGW business is all about opinion, not science.


The article is about people's opinions on the matter and makes no comment on the science itself or the data.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (30) Dec 14, 2012
"A falsifiable theory is one that makes a specific prediction about what results are supposed to occur under a set of experimental conditions, so that the theory might be falsified by performing the experiment and comparing predicted to actual results. A theory or explanation that cannot be falsified falls outside the domain of science"
"We have seen in recent years a growing tendency to treat as "scientific" anything that scientists say or believe."
"The fundamental problem raised by the identification of "good science" with "institutional science" is that it assumes the practitioners of science to be inherently exempt, at least in the long term, from the corrupting influences that affect all other human practices and institutions. "
http://www.thenew...cientism
Science based on opinion polls is not science.
julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (25) Dec 14, 2012
I pointed out before that those who serve the lie cannot rely on what they promote to provide adequate rejoinders for criticism. Therefore, they tend to rely on non arguments techniques like non justified dismissiveness, arrofance, viciousness, contempt, mockery, vulgarity. VendicarD's antics are an admission that they cannot disprove what I say, they cannot prove the opposite of it and they don't have the ethical depth to consider that important.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2012
The article basically says the only people left who do not see global warming are that small percentage of people who are so ensconced in thier mistaken belief, that no evidence what so ever will convince them otherwise. Judging by the fools who post thier denialist bs here, I would say that is a pretty accurate poll.

I also find it interesting that 97% of all scientists now believe that human caused warming is occurring. So much for the 125 "concerned scientists", the vast majority of whom are clowns and charlatans.
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2012
OK now I know I cannot disprove that that says Mr. Penrod, nor it's opposite because I lack requisite ethical depth
sstritt
1.9 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2012
Why have the models failed so miserably to predict or explain the 16 year pause in warming?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2012
Why have the models failed so miserably to predict or explain the 16 year pause in warming?

They haven't...
"Professor Judith Curry...told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were 'deeply flawed'"

Rose and Curry are trying to argue that because global surface temperatures have not warmed as fast as the multi-model average in the IPCC report (0.2°C per decade), this somehow suggests the models are flawed. However, the Met Office explained to Rose (prior to the publication of his article) why this notion is incorrect.

"The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely."
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2012
Rygg - "A theory or explanation that cannot be falsified falls outside the domain of science"

So Rygg's position is that Steven Hawking et al are not scientists - because they have a theory that cannot at this point in time be falsified. We do not have the resources to build our own universe - and see if the big bang theory is correct. So is Rygg's position that climate science is not really science - because we cannot falsify a prediction about the climate 100 years from now - therefore we should not build models to try to understand the process of our climate - as this is not real science? I guess we should all go to church on Sunday and ask the priest what is happening with the climate - or should we go to the witch doctor and have him read the bones - mmmm - tough questions - how do you decide?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2012
because they have a theory that cannot at this point in time be falsified

Einstein had a wait several years to test his theory of relativity.
Higgs is still waiting for his boson.
The problem with climate 'science' is it is an emergent system depending upon empirical models in a simulation. Tweak that, tweak this to make it fit the latest observations.

It's not really science. It's more closely related to engineering.
But then what is really 'science'? Is it Popper's definition? Yours, Kuhn's? Who defines 'science'?
Billy Koen came close in his 'Discussion of the Method'. Science is just another heuristic.

Shootist
2.5 / 5 (27) Dec 14, 2012
I cannot help but believe some of us are talking past one another.

Of course the climate is warmer now than 200 years ago. No one denies that.

The climate changes.

However, today's climate isn't as warm as the Viking period on Greenland c. 800-1300 CE. Dairy farms were extant for most of that period. Today's climate doesn't appears as warm as the Roman warm period. There were Vineyards, in Scotland, that operated for perhaps 1200 years. Too cold for any of that today.

The point being, dairy farms and vineyards, that operated for hundreds of years, both require climate warmer than today, and they require the climate to remain that warm . . . for hundreds of years, as well.

Since the Roman and Viking periods are "normal", today is normal. Until there are dairy farms in Greenland that have operated for 500 years, and the climate is still warming, leave me alone about political solutions to this non-proplem.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2012
"But he believes very much in climate change because of what he's seen with his own eyes. "Having lived for 67 years, we consistently see more and more changes based upon the fact that the weather is warmer," he said. "The seasons are more severe. The climate is definitely getting warmer.""

So he doesn't remember the 30s. That's why people write things down and we don't have to depend upon memories.
ArtflDgr
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2012
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2012
Rygg - "But then what is really 'science'?" That is the question Rygg - and you are the one who is saying "It's not really science." That is a direct quote from your post - not a distortion of what you said (which is what you are so comfortable doing). So if it "is not really science." - please enlighten us with your definition of science. My definition of science is the exploration of the universe we live in through a process of observation and experimentation. Climate science fits my definition fine - and scientific work does not have to be falsifiable (eg. - big bang theory, or string theory). Do you see how you are so certain in all of your rantings - because you simply quote from articles written by others - instead of thinking for yourself - and all of your sources are bias - which is fine (I watch msnbc) until you start quoting them to defend positions that you yourself are unable to have an original thought about.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2012
scientific work does not have to be falsifiable

Then you don't agree with Popper and you accept theories on faith?
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2012
Rygg "Then you don't agree with Popper and you accept theories on faith?"

Here we go again with you circular debates - and your insistance on the use of your religious word faith. Do you not learn from previous conversations? I guess that is rhetorical!

So - Einstein said that gravity is actually distortions in the space time continuum - caused by the presence of matter. can you falsify this theory? I can't. But becuase Einstein and others know way more about this shit than I do - and they say the evidence supports this theory - I certainly won't disagree with them. Perhaps I should have said 'scientific work does not ALWAYS have to be falsifiable. We have been round and round with this topic many times before. You really do not learn do you? I guess you get A for persistence.

djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2012
Shootist - "However, today's climate isn't as warm as the Viking period on Greenland c. 800-1300 CE. Dairy farms were extant for most of that period. Today's climate doesn't appears as warm as the Roman warm period. There were Vineyards, in Scotland, that operated for perhaps 1200 years. Too cold for any of that today.

You are talking past people because you do not pay any attention to what others say - I think the word is intransigent. Your bs about the MWP has been addressed so many times it is sad. You obviously do not listen to any information others present - just happy in your own blissful ignorance.
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2012
The poll did not ask whether the recent Superstorm Sandy, which killed more than 100 people when it struck the New York City and New Jersey region in late October, had influenced their thinking.


Asking a question like that would be "contamination" of the response, sort of like an investigator "leading" a witness by suggesting observations to them:

Inv: "Was he wearing a red shirt?"
Wit: "I don't know. He might have been."
Inv: "So you saw a guy in a red shirt fleeing the scene."
Wit: "Yeah."

===

These poll are about that bad some times, and asking an opinion poll of whether a respondent thought a recent disaster might be part of a trend would be no better than leading a witness.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2012
If a theory says that the sky will turn red if you say the words, "RyggTard has dung for brains", and when the words "RyggTard has dung for brains", and the sky turns red, we can rest assured that the theory has been confirmed by observation, without the employ of faith.

"Then you don't agree with Popper and you accept theories on faith?" - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard - He gone and dung gots himself, dung for brains.

VendicarD
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2012
The problem with RyggTard is that he isn't bright enough to know what an emergent system is, so he says idiotic things like...

"The problem with climate 'science' is it is an emergent system depending upon empirical models in a simulation." - RyggTard

Idiot.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012

"A falsifiable theory is one that makes a specific prediction about what results are supposed to occur under a set of experimental conditions, so that the theory might be falsified by performing the experiment and comparing predicted to actual results." - RyggTard

Theory predicts that that the average temperature of the earth will warm. Observations show it has warmed.

Theory predicts that the upper atmosphere will cool. Observations show it has cooled.

Theory: The poles will warm faster than the equator. Observation the poles have warmed faster than the equator.

Theory: Ocean temperatures will rise slower than those over land. Confirmed by observation

Theory: The ocean will expand as it warms and ocean levels will rise. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: The ocean will absorb some of the excess CO2 and become more acidic. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: The atmosphere will become more humid. Confirmed by observation.

Cont:
VendicarD
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2012
Theory: Extreme weather events will become more extreme. Confirmed by observation

Theory: Warmer air temperatures will cause the ice caps to melt, with the northern cap going first. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: Warmer air temperatures will cause glacier extents to receed. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: Warmer air will cause a change in the strength and position of the winter polar vortex. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: Warmer air temperatures will melt the Greenland Ice cap. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: Warmer air temperatures will cause the grain belt in the U.S. to become dry. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: Warmer temperatures will see plant, fish and animal species migrating toward the poles. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: Warmer temperatures will see mountain ice caps retreating upward. Confirmed by observation.

Theory: Warmer temperatures will see mountain microclimates and associated biota moving upward. Confirmed by observation.

Cont:
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Dec 14, 2012
religious word faith.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with. "
Max Planck
Einstein said that gravity is actually distortions in the space time continuum


Every time there is an eclipse, attempts are made to falsify. It's not that difficult, but it does require an accurate observation of Mercury.
Einstein made prediction that could be tested.
"Though Einstein based his theory of gravitation on deep theoretical principles, he and others proposed a number of experimental tests of the theory soon after its publication."
http://archive.nc...est.html
How well do climate models retrodict climate? If the theory is correct, the models (theory) should reflect past as well as future climate WITHOUT tweaking the values.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (23) Dec 14, 2012
Predicting the climate is warming is not much of a challenge since it has been warming for over 12000 years.

"Papers on the MWP as Global Event"
http://agwobserve...l-event/

Why did Mann and the AGWite try so hard to hide the MWP in his hockey stick?
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2012
One wonders what predictions of global warming theory aren't testable according to RyggTard?

Idiot.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2012
Which hockey stick RyggTard, there are at least 20 to 30 of them now all showing the same thing.

"Why did Mann and the AGWite try so hard to hide the MWP in his hockey stick?" - RyggTard

Be specific Tard Boy.
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2012
VendicarD: "Here Tardie, tardie, tardie, tardie...."
I'm generally in agreement with you, but must we drag the level of discourse down any further?
Mandan
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2012
...how could corn grow so tall if it wasn't getting water? It was allowed to wither to provide "proof"


Wow. Based on the size of the tassels and leaves on that corn, it looks to be about four feet tall, if that. We farmers have a saying about corn-- if you get it in the ground by May 10 it should be "knee high by the fourth of July". By August it should tower over a grown man's head.

If you lived where I do and saw the huge amount of both wheat and corn that burned up this last summer and the summer before as well you would be whistling a different tune. Normally we get at least 150 bushels per acre; sometimes as high as 230 (with irrigation). This year we averaged 96.

If you don't believe this past summer's drought was a catastrophe, check how much insurance was paid out on losses. Insurance agencies don't give money away for free, or to bolster political agendas. They send experts out to the fields, and this year they saw nothing but disaster.
PRISMsUK
2.4 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2012
Global warming – love it or hate it, it won't really matter, because by 2050 there are going to be 9 billion of us all demanding an energy-rich life style.

Presently, all of us puffing and panting in response to global warming articles, are representatives of ¼ of the population who use ¾ of the energy. By 2050, the vast majority of the 9 billion will be demanding, and have the right to, our standard of living and it's odds on they'll 'fight 'for it. If technology, market forces or political manoeuvring can't do it, then a world, disrupted by energy, water or food wars, is the inheritance of our children and grandchildren.

The IPCC won't save the planet because 99 people out of every 100 of us, lucky enough to have energy on demand, don't care where the energy comes from, as long as it's there 24/7. Why else would we commit 2 million people every year, to premature deaths by continuing to burn fossil fuels?

But there is one man and there is a technology, that can. The man is Dr Eri
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 15, 2012
If you don't believe this past summer's drought was a catastrophe,

Were you farming in the 30s or in the 70s? They were not very productive either. And these droughts were separated by ~35-40 years. Coincidence?
It was so dry in the 70s in SD we could barely reach the pocket gopher tunnels they had dug down so far.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2012
Rygg - "Every time there is an eclipse, attempts are made to falsify." You are correct Rygg - I picked a bad example - your link was very informative. So what about string theory. Is that falsifiable at this point? If not, you say that it is not science. I disagree with you. Like climate science - it is an emergent system - and we have much still to learn. That does not make it nonscience.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
Rygg - "How well do climate models retrodict climate?" They have had some level of success, but have fallen short in many ways. But you yourself stipulated that this is an emergent system. Do you believe that meteorology is science? Despite the fact that they are dealing with much more limited systems, and much shorter time frames - they have a very hit an miss record in terms of their weather predictions. They are getting better as they develop their understanding of the systems. Climatology will get better as the scientists develop their understanding of the system.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 15, 2012
So what about string theory. Is that falsifiable at this point? If not, you say that it is not science.


Not by Popper's definition.
Many consider string theory to be a religion, until the faithful have an experiment to falsify the theory.
The hypothesis that God exists is, in theory, a falsifiable statement, but what is the experiment to falsify the hypothesis? Same for string theory.
"For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma."
http://plato.stan.../popper/
This is the way climate models are treated today, ad hoc hypotheses to fit the 'facts'.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 15, 2012
"So in a way, there's bad news and good news in our paper," he said. "The bad news is, we're not describing the theory of everything. The good news is, we're making a very exact statement which is either right or wrong. There's no in between."

Duff emphasized that this is only a test of string theory as it relates to quantum entanglement, not as a description of the fundamental physics of the universe. The battle over string theory as a theory of everything rages on."
http://www.wired....quantum/
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2012
Ryg - "Not by Popper's definition." So you have a new savior - someone you can quote ad nauseum as the expert on all things. I understand that observation/hypothesis/experimentation are all part of the scientific process - string theory the big bang the existence of god are part of that process. Do you ever wonder what it is like to be able to think for yourself?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
"Ptolemy was successful in having people adopt his model because he gathered the best model pieces together, used the most accurate observations and he published his work in a large 13-volume series called the ``Almagest'', ensuring that his ideas would last long after he died. "
http://www.astron...htm#A2.4

"Galileo used his telescope to show that Venus went through a complete set of phases, just like the Moon. This observation was among the most important in human history, for it provided the first conclusive observational proof that was consistent with the Copernican system but not the Ptolemaic system. "
http://csep10.phy...leo.html

This is another fine example of how theories are falsified in science.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 15, 2012
Do you ever wonder what it is like to be able to think for yourself?

Do you ever wonder why most scientific papers have references? Can't they think for themselves?
BTW, another philosopher of science, Kuhn has pegged the present situation quite well. We have a 'consensus' in which peer pressure limits critique. AGW skeptics are equated to Holocaust deniers. (Which is interesting since there are many 'progressive' Jew haters who deny the Holocaust and likely support AGW.)
What makes real science great is the ONE individual, like Galileo, can make an observation and shatter centuries of consensus.
One significant critique of climate science is its incestuousness. A small cadre review each other's papers with limited outside review, like expert statisticians.
And if someone makes an unusual observation, and no one can explain it, like Fleishman and Pons, they must be excommunicated for such heresy.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2012
The hypothesis that God exists is, in theory, a falsifiable statement, but what is the experiment to falsify the hypothesis?


If you want to do a laboratory experiment, you could start by falsifying the opposite.

Now a person may say you can't falsify a negative, well, that's only true of certain direct situations.

You could falsify the requirements of a negative, i.e. falsifying abiogenesis.

1, Failing to falsify abiogenesis would not disprove God.

2, But falsifying abiogenesis would prove life is not an accident.

3, If life is not an accident we must be created.

4, If life is not an accident our creators must either be God or they must have been created by God.

Abiogenesis has never been observed when starting from a sterile laboratory experiment.

In order to be "scientifically" confirmed, Abiogenesis must be not only observable, but repeatable in a sterile laboratory experiment, otherwise it would be no better than personal testimony, which science doesn't accept.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2012
I'm just interested, what all GW supporters and deniers will say, when my geothermal theory of global warming will get confirmed.
djr
4.9 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2012
"Do you ever wonder why most scientific papers have references?" Scientific papers have references in order to give the work it's context. To describe other work that has been done that is relevant to the current work. Many experiments are straight duplications of previous work - simply to add more strength to the findings of the previous work. You have the process backwards - the references are not to validate the results of the current experiment. The problem I see with you is that rather than think critically - you are content to quote others - and present that as your thinking. Quotes can be taken out of context - and are very suspect - due to changes that happen over time. Einstein said that God does not play dice - should I use that as evidence of his religious beliefs?
djr
4.9 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2012
Rygg - "What makes real science great is the ONE individual, like Galileo, can make an observation and shatter centuries of consensus."

The consensus you are referring to was the consensus of the church hierarchy - other much older cultures already knew what Galileo was proposing eons ago. As usual - the church got it's hands into things and f**cked them up.

"like Fleishman and Pons," Are you seriously defending Pons Fleishman? Hey Rygg - I have this amazing machine called an e-cat - I'll sell it to you cheap.....

Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2012
I'm just interested, what all GW supporters and deniers will say, when my geothermal theory of global warming will get confirmed.


Consider it confirmed and ratified. The Zephyr Effect will figure prominently in the next edition.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
The article talked about global warming -- not anthropogenic global warming.

Of course people believe that climate is variable. The article poll simply confirms the obvious.

The political agenda of AGW, however, is another matter. The commentary shifts to AGW because there is no doubt that climate varies and because the political agenda continues to be pushed.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 15, 2012
As usual - the church got it's hands into things and f**cked them up.

Of course the full story is much more complex.

"There has been much controversy over the events leading up to Galileo's trial, ..."
http://plato.stan...lileo/#4
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2012
As for Fleishman and Pons:

"But near the top of the cold fusion research community's hit parade are musings from NASA, like the fact that the agency apparently filed two LENR-related patents last year and that a leading NASA scientist has indicated that LENR is real enough to pay attention to and study. Boeing and NASA may even be testing aircraft using LENR or other similar concepts."
http://www.usnews...t-burner
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2012
I'm just interested, what all GW supporters and deniers will say, when my geothermal theory of global warming will get confirmed.


There is no fear of that happening.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2012
I'm just interested, what all GW supporters and deniers will say, when my geothermal theory of global warming will get confirmed.

I am curious about your theory... I've got one that's worked perfectly/predictively since '86. The phenomenon you mention were spot-on, mine's on facebook: facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/454689344557455/
can we compare notes?
djr
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2012
As for Fleishman and Pons:

"But near the top of the cold fusion research community's hit parade are musings from NASA, like the fact that the agency apparently filed two LENR-related patents last year and that a leading NASA scientist has indicated that LENR is real enough to pay attention to and study. Boeing and NASA may even be testing aircraft using LENR or other similar concepts."

LENR may well prove one day to be an almost limitless and cheap energy source - I welcome the day. I was not asking about LENR - I was asking about Pons/Fleishman. You accused the scientific community of "excommunicating" them - implying there is some conspiracy to silence dissent. Do you believe Pons/Fleishman actually achieved cold fusion? If so - put up - duplicate their experiment (you do know precise documentation is a part of the scientific process - right?) and make yourself famous - and a savior of the planet. Otherwise - as is more likely - you are an idiot.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2012
...only close-up pictures of single areas. In the picture at the beginning of the article, how could corn grow so tall if it wasn't getting water? It was allowed to wither to provide "proof".


@julianpenrod: You're exactly right. Where I live, corn is allowed to wither `til the moisture content is ideal, then the corn is harvested and put up as silage.

This is just another example of false/misleading propaganda, and lame, biased journalism (courtesy of physorg).
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2012
Do you believe Pons/Fleishman actually achieved cold fusion?

I don't know what they found and no one else seems to either and few really seem to care.
Part of the fiasco is the fault of their university that pushed and promoted their research. Why would a university do that?

"Pat Shea, a Salt Lake City attorney who represented the two scientists during the controversy, said Fleischmann also told him that he regretted the discovery wasn't more cautiously vetted in a peer-reviewed publication "as opposed to being rushed into a public announcement."

"There was a big concern by leadership of the U. that if they waited, BYU or some other institution would take center stage," Shea said."
""They've not been able to prove it, but nobody has disproven it in terms of saying there isn't something worthy of research," he said.

As for Fleischmann, Krivit said he leaves a legacy of courage and of pure science."
http://www.sltrib...esearch.
Guy_Underbridge
2 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2012
I heard an interesting term today...

Welcome to the 'anthrogenicene' era
dogbert
2 / 5 (16) Dec 16, 2012
You can better propagandize climate change into anthropogenic climate change if you create a new word. Creation of the word implies that the claim has moved from speculation to certainty. Creation of a new word is often easier than changing the meaning of an existing word.

This is a common practice.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 16, 2012
You can better propagandize climate change into anthropogenic climate change if you create a new word. Creation of the word implies that the claim has moved from speculation to certainty. Creation of a new word is often easier than changing the meaning of an existing word.

This is a common practice.

Control the language, control the debate.
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2012
@godbarf This is a common practice.
Yes religious have bastardized words such as christ (wax), love, lord, sacred, spirit, belief, faith, and morality
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 16, 2012
You can better propagandize climate change into anthropogenic climate change if you create a new word. Creation of the word implies that the claim has moved from speculation to certainty. Creation of a new word is often easier than changing the meaning of an existing word.

This is a common practice.

Control the language, control the debate.


Read "Cracking the Code" by Hendrickson - the IRS has masterfully re-defined words such as wages, income, employer, etc.
djr
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2012
Do you believe Pons/Fleishman actually achieved cold fusion?

I don't know what they found and no one else seems to either and few really seem to care."

The bottom line is they never produced any results that could be replicated - and based on a sound process - scientists said "put up, or shut up". You suggesting that there was some kind of conspiracy is willfully stupid - knock it off....

"There was a big concern by leadership of the U. that if they waited, BYU or some other institution would take center stage," Shea said."
""They've not been able to prove it, but nobody has disproven it in terms of saying there isn't something worthy of research," he said.

As for Fleischmann, Krivit said he leaves a legacy of courage and of pure science."

But the bottom
djr
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2012
Rygg - "I don't know what they found and no one else seems to either and few really seem to care."

But the bottom line is they never produced any results that could be replicated - so the scientific community said 'put up or shut up' - and for you to try to suggest that there was some kind of conspiracy by the evil scientific community is willful stupidity - knock it off....
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
R2 says it well;
I don't know what they found and no one else seems to either and few really seem to care.

That about sums it up for you R2. Given the baked wheat fields of Kansas, among the deniers few care.
Mandan
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
If you don't believe this past summer's drought was a catastrophe,

Were you farming in the 30s or in the 70s? They were not very productive either. And these droughts were separated by ~35-40 years. Coincidence?
It was so dry in the 70s in SD we could barely reach the pocket gopher tunnels they had dug down so far.


Yes, I've been helping my family irrigate the Kansas prairie since the mid-1960s and have never seen anything like the past two summers. My dad just turned 92, lived through the Dust Bowl, and neither he nor any of the other old-timers can remember anything like these past two summers.

Most people don't know that the Dust Bowl wasn't caused primarily by drought. It was caused by over-cultivation during drought-- mostly still using animal power-- and not enough money to disc the ground once it started blowing. Once it starts blowing, the dust acts like a sandblaster, and becomes a vicious cycle, until you get on it with a tractor and burn a bunch of diesel.
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2012
Once the public executions start, there will be no more need for any label other than "guilty".

"I'm generally in agreement with you, but must we drag the level of discourse down any further?" - Neinsense
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
Corporate Wage Slavery = Freedom (Libertarian/Randite dictionary)

"Control the language, control the debate." - RyggTard
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
Yes, I've been helping my family irrigate the Kansas prairie since the mid-1960s and have never seen anything like the past two summers. My dad just turned 92, lived through the Dust Bowl, and neither he nor any of the other old-timers can remember anything like these past two summers.

I want to add some support to your argument. I have family on the Kansas plains too, and I'm hearing the same. My mother lived through the dust bowl as a little girl, and what strikes here different, is not dust, but just how hot the summers are now. Not just hot, but temps in the 105 for months at a time. Nothing grows at these temps. Everything turns brown and burns.

Every summer I would head over there and help with the harvests. The temps year after year have just progressed upwards. This year was insane. 105, 104, 106, 110. You can't live like that. You can't grow wheat in a desert.

VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
What word do you think was created by the climate scientists?

"You can better propagandize climate change into anthropogenic climate change if you create a new word." - DogBerTard

Anthropogenic? Sorry boy. The first known use of that word was in 1923.

Idiot.

VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
"You can't grow wheat in a desert." - HowHot

And global average temperatures are anticipated to increase by another 3'C by 2110 and 6'C by 2260 or so.

The Southern and central U.S. will be largely be a lifeless desert by 2260.

VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
Ya. It is all being conducted at Stark labs at area 51.

"Boeing and NASA may even be testing aircraft using LENR or other similar concepts." - RyggTard

Idiot.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
It has already been confirmed in an episode of StarTrek TNG. In that Documentary, the Enterprise solved the problem by shattering some naturlly occurring dilithium crystals that had grown deep within a planet's crust.

Congratulations.

"when my geothermal theory of global warming will get confirmed." - ValeriaT
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2012
Vendi,
What word do you think was created by the climate scientists? "You can better propagandize climate change into anthropogenic climate change if you create a new word." - DogBerTard Anthropogenic? Sorry boy. The first known use of that word was in 1923.
Idiot.


As usual, you don't even read commentary before you spout stuidity. I was commenting on Guy_Underbridge's statement:
I heard an interesting term today...

Welcome to the 'anthrogenicene' era

FMM
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
It is plain enough that the world is warming, and the main reason is probably us.

However, I have my doubts that the consequences will be as terrible as portrayed -- we will deal with it with some local disasters and a lot of engineering.

Also, I don't really see that much can be done without the cure being worse than the disease. I have no problem with some reasonable measures, and even a reasonable carbon tax to incentivize, but nothing of the sort the environmental extremists propose.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2012
And global average temperatures are anticipated to increase by another 3'C by 2110 and 6'C by 2260 or so.

And by then the scoops will be coming;

http://www.livele...96901185

Of course it's the wealthy conservatives Kochs that would be sending the scoops.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2012
Opps, I guess I meant this would be Detroit!? as a slave state.

http://www.livele...96901185
djr
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2012
FMM - "but nothing of the sort the environmental extremists propose." Fmm - I would probably be considered an environmental extremist - I propose that we continue to study the climate with all the resources we can muster - and look to the science community (that is a general science - including agriculture, climatology, etc) to consider solutions if the predicted problems actually transpire. I am excited about alternative energy (wind and solar are now both close to grid parity - with other technologies in the pipeline that will continue to push the cost down). I would love to see us considering huge scale solar or nuclear desalination plants to begin pumping water into desert areas for agriculture http://www.nbcnew...s-947344 My main wish is that we de-militarize - and start diverting our resources into studying our planet. Is it so radical to suggest taking the $600 billion dollars we spent on cont.
djr
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2012
cotn. on the F35 fighter jet that we do not need - or the billion dollar research project that the airforce just announced was a total waste of money - and instead focus on a much better education system to prepare today's kids to become the scientists of the future - with the skill sets needed to continue to study the issue - and talk about rational solutions?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2012
cotn. on the F35 fighter jet that we do not need - or the billion dollar research project that the airforce just announced was a total waste of money - and instead focus on a much better education system to prepare today's kids to become the scientists of the future - with the skill sets needed to continue to study the issue - and talk about rational solutions?

And what will you do when a 'progressive' nation like Iran or China demands the US bend over and grab its ankles or they will attack a city?
djr
5 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2012
Rygg - "And what will you do when a 'progressive' nation like Iran or China demands the US bend over and grab its ankles or they will attack a city?"

The implication here is that you have no problem with the air force wasting $1 billion on a worthless project that they themselves had to admit did not work. But you will wail and scream about Solyndra - an attempt to invest in the technology for our future. You worthless hypocrite...
Mandan
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012

...what strikes here different, is not dust, but just how hot the summers are now. Not just hot, but temps in the 105 for months at a time. Nothing grows at these temps. Everything turns brown and burns.

Every summer I would head over there and help with the harvests. The temps year after year have just progressed upwards. This year was insane. 105, 104, 106, 110. You can't live like that.


Wheat does better than corn.

But you are absolutetly correct. We have enough water for irrigation for now-- though the Ogallala Aquifer is dropping like a downhill rocket such that local newspapers are now predicting it will be gone in ten years. We can put plenty of water on the crops now, but had to apply to Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment to increase our water rights. The heat is the true problem even with water. We irrigate plenty, and the leaves just wilt. Corn has to go below 90 in August at night to pollinate. It's not getting there.

This is serious, folks.
david_king
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2012
So just tell me someone -where is all the CO2 we produce going? Does it just vanish into thin air?
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2012
Rygg- "And what will you do when a 'progressive' nation like Iran or China demands the US bend over and grab its ankles or they will attack a city?"

More boogey men for Rygg be scared of - Henny Penny is at it again - the sky is falling - the Russians are coming - oh this time it is the Chinese - it will always be someone - have to justify that bloated military budget - strange for someone who believes that government is so incompetent and evil - but we are happy to let the government have all the nukes.

The U.S. spends $711 billion dollars a year - 4.7% of gdp on the military. The next country down the list is China - with $143 billion, and 2% of gdp. Oh but we need more - the generals feel they cannot protect us without more, and more, and more. What happens if Iran invades us with their F14 A Tomcat fighters we sold them. Strange idea just occurred to me - what if we didn't sell them fighter jets - oh silly me - Grumman has to make a profit some how.
Mandan
5 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

http://www.scienc...0631.htm

Not only is the CO2 not vanishing, but contrary to the hopes and dogma of the more-CO2-the-better crowd, as you can see in the two articles above there is an emerging understanding that something akin to a phase transition occurs above a certain level of the gas in terms of how it affects our domesticated crops, and probably non-domesticates as well.

These traits-- dwarfism, drought-resistance, salt-resistance, increased kernal size, etc., have been hard-won successes in extracting more and more food out of less and less ground (as cities sprawl over prime arable land). The fact that they appear to be failing as the plants revert to their ancestral condition under high CO2 levels simply shows the complexity and inter-connectedness of the problems we farmers are going to be facing in our ongoing attempts to feed rapidly rising human populations on hot earth.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2012
it will always be someone

That was the attitude in the USA in the 30s. While Germany rebuilt its military, Japan was raping China.
But, who cares what happens to millions of Chinese or the French, Brits and Jews.
The USA is not a part of the rest of the world and we don't need to trade with anyone else. And there will be no turd world dictator or rouge Muslim leader who can do anything to blow up buildings in NYC or DC will there?

Iran doesn't need F-14s. They have their own ballistic missiles and will soon have their own nuclear weapon that can reach the US. They don't even have to hit the USA with such a weapon, just detonate an EMP pulse. Will that merit a full scale nuclear response from the USA if the Russians or Chinese object? Or Europe? A full scale response to one or two nukes from Iran will create fallout over Europe. What does Iran have to lose?
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2012
And what will you do when a 'progressive' nation like Iran or China demands the US bend over and grab its ankles or they will attack a city?
You tell them "That's SOCIALISM," ryggie. Then they will go away in shame!
Mandan
5 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2012
it will always be someone

That was the attitude in the USA in the 30s. While Germany rebuilt its military, Japan was raping China.
But, who cares what happens to millions of Chinese or the French, Brits and Jews.

...Iran doesn't need F-14s.


You do know that the Republicans were the isolationists in pre-WWII America, with FDR looking for every way possible to get into the thing?

And you do know that Iran was originally sold F jets during the reign of Reza Shah? And Reagan agreed to ship Khomeini replacement parts for them and other weapons systems in return for the release of our embassy hostages? You know, the whole Iran/Contra, arms-for-hostages, "mistakes were made" thing back in the 80s?

At the same time Rumsfield was shaking hands with Saddam to seal the deal to supply him with chemical weapons to use against those Iranian forces we were shipping arms to during the Iraq/Iran war?

Face it rygg. There's no coherence in the world you want to believe exists.
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 17, 2012
Mandan says: "Face it rygg. There's no coherence in the world you want to believe exists."

That's right rygg...you should know by now the only cause you can truly believe in is AGW, and the only people you can truly trust are AGW scientists - everyone/everything else is smoke and mirrors.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2012
Manny, and you do know it was Carter who abandoned the Shah just as Obama has abandoned the rest of the middle east to Muslim theocracy.
Also, in the 80s, Iraq was a Soviet client state and the Iran-Iraq war was a win-win for the west. Selling F-14 parts to Iran would support that conflict. And, the Soviets were active in Nicaragua and Caribbean in the 80s.
Sending Stingers to bin Ladin in Afghanistan was also in the interest of the west to drive the Soviets out.
After the USSR collapsed, priorities changed in the M.E. but Clinton didn't seem to appreciate the radical Muslim threat using the FBI to investigate the first WTC attack, running from Somalia, failing to respond to attacks on US military in Saudi Arabia and the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole and culminating in the 9/11/01 attacks.

It was the 'progressive' Wilson who put the US into WW1?
Mandan
5 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2012
Mandan says: "Face it rygg. There's no coherence in the world you want to believe exists."

That's right rygg...you should know by now the only cause you can truly believe in is AGW, and the only people you can truly trust are AGW scientists - everyone/everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Mandan says: "Face it rygg. There's no coherence in the world you want to believe exists."

That's right rygg...you should know by now the only cause you can truly believe in is AGW, and the only people you can truly trust are AGW scientists - everyone/everything else is smoke and mirrors.


Since you refer to my comment, I don't use the word "believe" to represent my thinking on any question-- scientific or otherwise. I weigh evidence for various models and hypotheses and usually entertain the possibility that any one or more of several might have bearing on a more accurate understanding of the Universe. I am glad to adjust my viewpoints if needed, which is why I read.

You don't?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2012
I don't use the word "believe" to represent my thinking on any question-

Are you proud of yourself?

You do know there are others who are not that too proud to 'believe'?

"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"
http://edge.org/q...int.html
Mandan
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
Don't waste your time arguing against the Democrats/Progressives with me rygg-- I'm not one. Believe it or not, dualism isn't the only way to view the Universe.

Mandan
5 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2012
I actually subscribe to the edge.org email. There are some interesting things on there occasionally, but much of the time those folks seem to be holding self-congratulatory and very expensive-looking junkets in Italy and New York.

This model represents my approach to adjusting scientific "beliefs": http://amasci.com...ead.html

I speak only for myself on the use of the word "belief", however. If I am able to put it in warning quotes, and qualify it myself, I will use it. For the most part however, I stay away from it as much as possible. Belief is real. Doing it affects the neuro-endocrine system, and can influence the outcome of sensorimotor skills. It is an evolved human characteristic under selection, but just as I choose to accept that the earth is round and orbits the sun when my eyes want me to "believe" something else, I also accept that religion and tribalism-- which are just two effects of historical "belief" expression-- might not be conducive to survival long-term.

Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2012
So just tell me someone where is all the CO2 we produce going? Does it just vanish into thin air?

One of the best questions asked so far. The Earth has a process called the "CARBON CYCLE" where CO2 circulates from the air into the water and oceans, where living creatures consume it and chemically modify it into plant tissue and calcium carbonate shells, and eventually move CO2 into rock. It lakes a long time for each stage of CO2's absorption into the earth to take place, but one path is via the decay of dead plant and animal material.
That becomes oil and coal. Basically oil and coal (and natural gas) are the fossilized remnants of swamps, pond scum and dead animals of all sorts.

CO2 is a green house gas meaning it will reflect infrared light, and so as it builds in the atmosphere, it reflects the infrared light re-emitted from the rocks and ocean after being heated from sunlight back towards the surface of Earth. It works just like a green house. Air CO2 is out of balance
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2012
Rygg - "and the Iran-Iraq war was a win-win for the west"

That about sums it up Rygg - sit back and watch the brown people kill each other - better yet, sell both sides weapons - really a win/win for us - we can come in behind all the carnage and get the oil contracts - really a win/win/win - I am sure Jesus approves - he does not like the brown people either. You are truly a piece of work.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2012
Rygg - "and the Iran-Iraq war was a win-win for the west"

That about sums it up Rygg - sit back and watch the brown people kill each other - better yet, sell both sides weapons - really a win/win for us - we can come in behind all the carnage and get the oil contracts - really a win/win/win - I am sure Jesus approves - he does not like the brown people either. You are truly a piece of work.

When two of your enemies are fighting each other, stay out of the way.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2012
I am sure Jesus approves - he does not like the brown people either.

Does this mean you support US intervention in Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, and anywhere else brown, black, white or ...people are fighting?
You said you were 'Libertarian', or is this too "complex" an issue for you?
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2012
Does this mean you support US intervention in Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, and anywhere else brown, black, white or ...people are fighting?

No it does not - I would withdraw all of our troops from every country around the world if I was in charge. My comment was targeted at your vile attitude - when two countries are going through so much carnage - fighting each other - many of the weapons they are using supplied by the U.S. - and you can sit back and gloat at all that death and say - 'that is a win/win for the west'. One very significant aspect of my political philosophy is an emphasis on morality. I understand that is often understood to be a part of the libertarian view. I do not believe that your cavalier attitude towards the suffering of others is compatible with a moral view point. I would not label myself a libertarian - but I like the constructs of minimal government and personal responsibility.

Cont.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2012
Cont. - If you want to talk about the merits of interventionism - would you directly answer two questions for me. The estimates are that somewhere between 1 and 2 million people died in the Vietnam war - many of the casualties being civilians caught up in the napalming of their home land. How do you make the calculation regarding cost/benefit of such an intervention? Do you believe the U.S. was morally justified in killing this many people?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2012
My comment was targeted at your vile attitude

MY vile attitude?
Thousands are being killed around the world everyday in wars in Congo and dozens of other places where the US is not involved.
And you don't really care.
Liberty for me but not for thee, eh?

I would not label myself a libertarian -

You claimed you were. Is it too complex for you?
djr
5 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2012
Rygg - "And you don't really care." How on earth do you conclude that I don't care? What would you have me do Rygg - end all the wars single handedly?

Now - on to your vile attitude - you are the one who can watch the carnage of two countries at war with each other - and smugly conclude "that is a win/win for the west." Then you conclude that I do not care - with no basis - you are an idiot.

Foreign affairs is a way to complex issue to fully debate on this forum. I think there would be a lot less killing if we had a consistent and moral foreign policy - stopped supporting evil dictators such as Mubarak (sp) and Hussein etc. focused on putting our own house in order - and trying to work with the international community to stand against evil. Giving up Kissinger to the world court would be a good first step. I noticed you did not answer my questions about Vietnam. It is easier to attack someone else than to come up with constructive ideas.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2012
Rygg - "You claimed you were" Have someone who can actually read (Vendi would be a good choice) and look at what I actually said. I said that I did not have a label - but perhaps I should come up with my own - maybe enlightened libertarian. That is a very different statement - but clearly too complex for you.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2012
dj, don't the socialists in USSR bear any responsibility for Iraq, Korea, Vietnam?
Sure, the US could have let the USSR annex South Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Afghanistan ... and there would be peace in the world. But it's too complex to discus.
Ever watch "The Lives of Others"? http://www.imdb.c...0405094/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2012
Rygg - "You claimed you were" Have someone who can actually read (Vendi would be a good choice) and look at what I actually said. I said that I did not have a label - but perhaps I should come up with my own - maybe enlightened libertarian. That is a very different statement - but clearly too complex for you.

"There is no political box I can fit myself in Rygg - but I would like to see a world with maximum individual freedoms, minimal government bureaucracy, very lightly regulated free markets, and a fantastic education system so that every member has an advanced degree.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
dj, what is an 'advanced' degree? And why must everyone have one? To be indoctrinated by the 'enlightened'?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Shaw
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2012
"Locke does not present a systematic theory of education, and the work reads more like an instruction manual than a philosophical text. Locke's is convinced that moral education is more important than other kinds of education. The goal of education, in his view, is not to create a scholar, but to create a virtuous man."
http://www.thefed...ee-ebook

Is this what you think an education should be, dj?
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2012
R2; do you need to learn a new argument style? Everything you have debated is so full of weakness it's disputable that you said anything! For example; "Sure, the US could have let the USSR annex South Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Nicaragua, Afghanistan ... " etc, etc. And your point is ... What? What? What?

At one time I thought you were a good debater. Now it's like looking at the congressional tea-party caucus; what a bunch of loosers, So how are things with you?


Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2012
Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it


That says everything doesn't it R2?

VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2012
Poor Ryggtard. He us being used as a mop to clean the floor, and doesn't even have the brains to realize it.

Well done dir, and Howhot.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2012
Rygg - "dj, what is an 'advanced' degree? And why must everyone have one? To be indoctrinated by the 'enlightened?" I am talking about a college degree such as a masters degree, or an Edd. or Phd. I am not suggesting that everyone be forced to get one - but that everyone has the opportunity. I want to live in a world in which education is valued. You see - in poor communities - where people don't have the resources to get a good education - you have a high level of crime, violence, drugs, poor health statistics - etc. You see - something you don't understand is critical thinking. I don't want to see anyone indoctrinated - I want everyone to be emancipated - but I think this means access to education - to inspire peoples minds to be free - and to explore - all constructs that are too complex for you. Despite the ignorance of people like you - I think we will one day live in a more advanced society - where crime and violence are unnecessary.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2012
Vendi - "Poor Ryggtard. He us being used as a mop to clean the floor, and doesn't even have the brains to realize it."

And more interesting is the lack of moral fortitude. I asked a couple of simple questions - "was the U.S. morally justified in killing several million people in the Vietnam war, and how do we make the calculation in this kind of situation. Of course no response. Rygg thinks it is fine to watch the carnage of suffering brought about by a war - in which many of the weapons were supplied by the U.S. - and to conclude smugly - "that is a win/win for the west" Morally sickening.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
"NVA/VC forces killed around 164,000 civilians in democide between 1954 and 1975 in South Vietnam,"
"the government of South Vietnam to be responsible for 90,000 democidal killings from 1954–1975"
"American forces committed around 5,500 democidal killings between 1960 and 1972"
"Sources have estimated that 165,000 South Vietnamese died in the re-education camps out of 1-2.5 million sent"
http://en.wikiped...fp1995-5

"was the U.S. morally justified in killing several million people in the Vietnam war,

The US govt did NOT kill several million in the Vietnam War.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2012
You see - something you don't understand is critical thinking.

You see, something you don't understand is critical writing.
You are very imprecise with your terminology.
in poor communities - where people don't have the resources to get a good education -

Where is that? Most of the reasons I have seen for a bad education in poor communities is the failure of discipline and morality, not a shortage of funds.
You know the story of Joe Clark?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it


That says everything doesn't it R2?


Science must now be conducted by public opinion polls?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2012
Rygg "The US govt did NOT kill several million in the Vietnam War."

So as usual - you ignore the point of the question, and argue a technicality. Let me reword the question. The war of aggression waged by the U.S. against the country of Vietnam caused massive casualties. The final death toll will never be known - but estimates are that somewhere between 1 and 2 million people died in that war - many of them civilians. The actual numbers are not critical for discussing the point of the morality of the war - but if you want some numbers to digest look at these - Vietnam's government claimed that 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of after effects (of agent orange), and that 500,000 children were born with birth defects.

Now please answer the spirit of the question - and stop your childish deflection with detail. Was the U.S. morally justified in waging this war? How do you arrive at such a calculation?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2012
Rygg - Where is that? Most of the reasons I have seen for a bad education in poor communities is the failure of discipline and morality, not a shortage of funds.

So is it your position that poverty is caused by a failure of discipline and morality? How do you arrive at such a lofty conclusion? The implication is that poor people are that way - because they lack morality and discipline. Have you ever worked with a poor community? Do you understand the poverty trap? Do you know anything about human growth and development? I have studied this topic. We know a lot about the development of the human mind. In short - if you tell a kid he/she is worthless - it is very hard to remedy the poor self image that child takes on. Communities with very low resource levels (not just funds - but resources) - tend to have very poor academic outcomes. There are schools in Oklahoma with more than a 50% drop out rate. In a world in which education is so critical - this is very hard to overcome.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2012
Rygg - "You are very imprecise with your terminology." I understand myself very well - perhaps it is a problem on the part of the receiver. You prove yourself masterful at evasion, and distortion of intent - it all fits to me.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
Let me reword the question.

I understand myself very well -

Good for you.
The war of aggression waged by the U.S. against the country of Vietnam


But it was not a war just against Vietnam. It was also a war against the USSR.
Just as the war in Korea was against USSR and China, when China and USSR were somewhat friendly. Stalin gave the OK for the the North to invade the South.
Iraq/Iran was also a proxy war with USSR.
During the Vietnam war, the US had A-4s on alert with nuclear bombs in Taiwan?
Yes, it was a complex act to try and stop the USSR without directly attacking them.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2012
Do you understand the poverty trap?

It's a cultural issue, and hence a moral and discipline issue.
A great example are the Indian reservations.
A friend recalled a Sioux returning home from WWII who was dragged back down by his tribe.
Compare the Highland Scots to Lowland Scots. Sowell did a nice job in Conquests and Cultures.
Compare different black slave cultures in the US, Caribbean and South America.
Look at the Scandinavian Jante law.
When you deny it's culture you provide excuses.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2012
"Fuzzy definitions or not, culture is back. This prompted mock surprise from Rep. Woolsey (D, CA) at last spring's Congressional briefing: "What a concept. Values, norms, beliefs play very important roles in the way people meet the challenges of poverty." "
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2012
"China would continue; however, to provide substantial levels of military aid for North Vietnam to the tune of $106 million from 1955 to 1963, effectively giving the North the resources needed to begin the insurgency in the South. [43] Thus, the North Vietnamese would form the National Liberation Front, NLF, in December of 1960 and the People's Liberation Armed Forces, PLAF, the following year in 1961. Both the NLF and PLAF would be more commonly referred to as the Viet Cong, or Vietnamese Communists. "
http://www.milita...ort.aspx

Looks like the Chinese communists was more involved in Vietnam than I thought.

"Chairman Mao remained concerned about the U.S., in his opinion "the most ferocious enemy of the people of the world." " (same source)
I am not surprised so many who post here agree with Dear Leader Mao.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
"But it was not a war just against Vietnam. It was also a war against the USSR."

So in 1975 - we got kicked out of S. Vietnam - and guess what? - the communists did not take over the world. So the only logical conclusion to this - is that the war was based on a lie - and millions of people died needlessly. So the answer to my question is that no - the war in Vietnam was not morally justified - and the authors of that war have much blood on their hands.

Cont.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
Cont. - I have been reflecting on this kind of protracted exchange - and of course have come to the understanding that it is not productive use of time. I am interested in the evolution of the human race - and participate in this kind of forum in order to be a part of the positive change. Fighting with someone who is clearly comfortable being proved wrong over and over - and then continues to spam the internet with rubbish - is clearly not productive. Sadly Vendi is right - the answer in not rational dialogue - it is simply pointing out the logical inconsistencies - and moving on. I do see you as morally bankrupt Rygg - and also as someone with no interest in self reflection. I hope the human race will evolve - but I think it will have to be without the likes of you Rygg.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2012
So the answer to my question is that no - the war in Vietnam was not morally justified -

Of course the war was not fought to be won. It could have been had the politicians supported it.
The millions murdered by the communist Pol Pot might disagree about communism taking over the world.
But socialism IS taking over and has been advancing for over 100 years.
After the defeat of the US in Vietnam, USSR was emboldened to invade Afghanistan and ramp up efforts in Nicaragua and the Caribbean.
Evolution first requires survival. When you have enemies who want to kill you, you cannot evolve and if they won't evolve the way you wish them to, what are you going to do? Let them kill you or kill them first? Evolution is survival of the fittest.
What is 'evolution of the human race'? A 'Borg socialist collective or a society the honors, respects and defends the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property for every individual?
Is this too complex for you?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2012
So the answer to my question is that no - the war in Vietnam was not morally justified

That depends upon your morals does it not?
Is it moral to standby enabling socialist tyranny?
If your a socialist with ZERO respect for the individual's right to life, liberty and property, then the war was immoral. Any action to limit the power of the state over the individual is immoral to the socialist and probably an 'enlightened libertarian'.
The most significant idea from the Enlightenment (which so many 'progressives' claim to revere) is to recognize that every human individual has inherent, unalienable rights to life, liberty and property that are NOT derived from any govt, king or other human being but are fundamental to the nature of man.
dj wants to 'evolve' this to socialist subjugation?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
The millions murdered by the communist Pol Pot might disagree about communism taking over the world.
You yanks murdered those millions of Cambodians. Afterward Pol Pot was left with famine and had to ration food for those who could restore the food supply. That is the kind of choice you gave Cambodia, you asshole.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2012
The millions murdered by the communist Pol Pot might disagree about communism taking over the world.
You yanks murdered those millions of Cambodians. Afterward Pol Pot was left with famine and had to ration food for those who could restore the food supply. That is the kind of choice you gave Cambodia, you asshole.

So the west starved all those in Ukraine, not Stalin?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
"That depends upon your morals does it not?"

I will no longer debate with you. It is pointless. You are morally bankrupt, and cannot understand logical argument. Yes Rygg - my thinking is too complex for you. You regurgitate the arguments that others feed you. You cannot think for yourself. The evolution of the human race requires morals, self reflection, and compassion. You seem devoid of any of these things. I agree with kochevnik's assessment of your character.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
Largely the Kulaks starved themselves through the destruction of their own stores of food in the presumption that the loss of their reserves would mean that their excess production would be reclassified as their food reserve.

It wasn't to be so, and their excess production was confiscated by the government, as planned, for resale on international markets. The Kulak's were then left in a situation where they had destroyed their own food reserves. Starvation was the natural result.

"So the west starved all those in Ukraine, not Stalin?" - RyggTard
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2012
"You are morally bankrupt, and cannot understand logical argument. Yes Rygg - my thinking is too complex for you. You regurgitate the arguments that others feed you. You cannot think for yourself." - dir

dir, now realizes what Rand and Libertarian ideology is all about.

They call themselves "free thinkers" because that is what their handlers have told them to call themselves. In reality they are incapable of independent, rational thought.

Immorality is their hallmark.

Mandan
5 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2012
The millions murdered by the communist Pol Pot might disagree about communism taking over the world.
You yanks murdered those millions of Cambodians. Afterward Pol Pot was left with famine and had to ration food for those who could restore the food supply. That is the kind of choice you gave Cambodia, you asshole.


Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge played much more of an active role than just helpless onlookers given a bad situation.

The fact that they and Mao (and Stalin) before them killed millions of their own people does not, however, justify any evil the United States and its allies did as a result or in response, going back to and even before WWI and the support we gave to the Whites, including outright invasion of the Soviet Union for pulling Russia from the eastern front.

The US has plenty to answer for against Native Americans and African slaves long before Karl Marx drew his first breath.

None of this means everyone else was innocent. They weren't/aren't.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012

"The US govt did NOT kill several million in the Vietnam War." - RyggTard

From RyggTard's own source.

"The Vietnamese government stated in 1995 that a total of 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians died in the war."

Later from the same source...

"According to the Vietnamese government, there were 1,100,000 North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong military personnel deaths during the Vietnam War."

Apparently RyggTard is incapable of honestly quoting from his own sources of information.

1,100,000 2,000,000 = 3,100,000 = 3 million.

I have never encountered a Randite or Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

RyggTard is clearly no exception to that rule.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
Indeed, America has directly murdered over 30 million people in it's short history, many more if you include those murdered by the American state in WW1 and WW2.

"The US has plenty to answer for against Native Americans and African slaves long before Karl Marx drew his first breath."
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2012
The US has plenty to answer for against Native Americans and African slaves long before Karl Marx drew his first breath. None of this means everyone else was innocent. They weren't/aren't.


Never claimed innocence but won't accept the moral relativism of those defending socialism.
How many US citizens died in the War Between the States which ENDED slavery?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
Mandan - "The fact that they and Mao (and Stalin) before them killed millions of their own people does not, however, justify any evil the United States and its allies did"

I wish Rygg could understand the consistency of your argument Mandan. Of course one atrocity does not excuse another atrocity. All acts of evil should be opposed - which seems to be where the western world has had some major difficulty over the last few hundred years. We have supported evil dictators if we felt it served our interest - and then been surprised when there was resentment by the victims of said dictators. a truly moral and consistent policy would be to oppose all evil - and be much more prudent in the use of violence ourselves. The fight against the boogey man communists has given us permission to commit atrocities. I think the generals are worried now that they may not have a boogey man to justify their bloated budgets.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
Americans have always been slaves to the plantation owners.

"How many US citizens died in the War Between the States which ENDED slavery?" - RyggTard

Just ask any Walmart employee....

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." - Lincoln
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2012
But you regularly demonstrate not only moral relativism, but outright denialism when it comes to Capitalist nations like your own committing the mass murder of millions.

"Never claimed innocence but won't accept the moral relativism of those defending socialism." - RyggTard

Filth.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2012
Vendi - "I have never encountered a Randite or Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar."

I would not tar an entire group of people in that way Vendi - but perhaps I just need more time to get more jaded than I am. I do think there are many libertarians that are moral - and believe sincerely in the system they espouse. Moral relativism does seem to be a trap many of them fall into. Interestingly - for a group that promotes individualism so strongly - there does seem to be a large dose of group think. Perhaps in time - experience will leave me in the same space you are currently. The biggest concern I currently have is the politicization of science. I see science as our tool for escaping our current ignorance - and the right wing assault on science is a big threat to me
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2012
The fight against the boogey man communists

Socialism is not an evil that should be opposed?
Especially within the USA?

In a war against tyranny one must pick your battles. Of course the US picked dictators that would oppose the Soviets and Chinese if they were given some free reign in their little pond.
Once the USSR collapsed most of the dictators did too as the US no longer had a need for Marcos or Samosa or many other tin pot dictators.
We may regret tossing Mubarak and Qadaffi under the bus as what replaces them is not likely to be friendly to the west.
Until you convert the rest of the world to your 'enlightened libertarianism' how do you plan to defend yourself?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012
ConservaTards like RyggTard are so fearful of the benefits of Socialism that they are working to destroy their own nation to prevent it.

"Socialism is not an evil that should be opposed?" - RyggTard

Consider these words from another Libertarian.

"We need to manufacture a (economic) crisis in order to assure that there are no alternatives to a smaller government." - Jeb Bush - Impris magazine, 1995

Some dare call it treason.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2012
I am perfectly honest in my statement.

I have never encountered a Randite/Libertairan who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

"I would not tar an entire group of people in that way Vendi - but perhaps I just need more time to get more jaded than I am." - dir

RyggTard is clearly a congenital liar as you have now concluded.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2012
The biggest concern I currently have is the politicization of science. I see science as our tool for escaping our current ignorance - and the right wing assault on science is a big threat to me


When did Al Gore join the right?
AGW has been one political project of Al Gore and the left for decades.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2012
RyggTard is a closet statist.

"We may regret tossing Mubarak and Qadaffi under the bus as what replaces them is not likely to be friendly to the west." - RyggTard

But Fascism is what he is really selling.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 20, 2012
ConservaTards like RyggTard are so fearful of the benefits of Socialism that they are working to destroy their own nation to prevent it.


If socialism is as wonderful as you imply, there would be mass exodus of people leaving the US bound for socialist countries. I don't see that happening. On the contrary, from what I see, millions are trying to get *into* the US.

Few things would make me happier than to see all socialists leave the US and go live somewhere else.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2012
ScooTard confuses immigration patterns that result from apparent wealth to immigration patterns resulting from political ideology.

Tell those immigrants that they are immediately responsible for paying off $45,000 in federal debt and see how many come to the U.S.

There is an illusion of wealth in the U.S. One which is evaporating every day.
Mandan
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2012

How many died in the War Between the States which ENDED slavery?


750,000-- but the war was fought primarily to preserve the Union. Emancipation was a goal of only the most radical Republicans at the outset. The South however fought to spread slavery into the territories & Latin America, and by 1862 national sentiment had shifted to expropriation of the rebels as a primary war goal.

These subjects have been well-covered in 'Disunion', an excellent series in the New York Times since 2010. It has covered the 150th anniversary of every phase of the war, every ideological debate, every important individual-- much written as if it was happening now. I highly recommend it.

As for moral equivalence, until our invasion of Iraq in 2003 I could justify much Cold War action in light of Soviet/Chinese threats; in hindsight by the 70s the USSR was in decline. We knew it, and military spending was about bankrupting them. Global Economy for the 1% has replaced all idealism as motive.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2012
but the war was fought primarily to preserve the Union.

Of course it was and slavery was a significant cause as well as significant economic disparity and concern that the CSA would ally with other powers in opposition to the remaining states.
But the facts are after the war, slaves were emancipated as well as aboriginal Americans.
Why pass the 14th Amendment if slavery was not an issue?
If slavery wasn't a major issue why bother with a CT compromise or a Missouri compromise?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2012

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Lincoln

RyggTard and his fellow Libertarian/Randites believe that Lincoln was a Filthy Statist.
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2012
This post was a fat-finger mistake - sorry.
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 20, 2012
ScooTard confuses immigration patterns that result from apparent wealth to immigration patterns resulting from political ideology.

Tell those immigrants that they are immediately responsible for paying off $45,000 in federal debt and see how many come to the U.S.

There is an illusion of wealth in the U.S. One which is evaporating every day.


It would be nice if immigration control were that easy...

Not to worry. The US will do what any debtor does when they can't pay their bills - stiff the creditor, enrich the lawyers, move forward with another scheme.

Credit is risky business. Rule #1: never bet more than you're willing to lose.
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 20, 2012
ScooTard confuses immigration patterns that result from apparent wealth to immigration patterns resulting from political ideology.


Just what is "wealth"? And who are you to define it?

---

Vendicard laments the steady decline of the US, as demonstrated in a number of his/her posts. Vendicard also strongly rebukes capitalism and strongly edifies socialism. But the US did not start out as a socialistic state, but rather a highly conservative state. Every day that goes by, the US becomes more "socialistic".

If Vendicard in-fact believes socialism is better, it seems he/she would be cheering the conversion of America from conservatism to liberalism/socialism. But that's not the case.

I admit - Vendicard's position confuses me.

Maybe an explanation by Vendicard is needed at this point?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2012
Rygg - "Until you convert the rest of the world to your 'enlightened libertarianism' how do you plan to defend yourself?"

If someone attacks me - I will defend myself. If someone attacks the U.S. - which is the country I currently live in - if needs be - I will sign up and go die for the protection of freedom. But unlike ignorant fools like yourself - I respect the right of people in other counties to determine their own course - and I don't support the support of evil dictators because I think they currently serve my interest - f**ck the people who have to be tortured and killed so that I can continue in my privilege. That is your position - the position of someone who practices moral relativism - in other words - if it protects my privilege - f**k to poor brown people who have to die - collateral damage sucks - but hey someone has to die. I wonder what Rygg thinks of countries around the world such as European countries - who have a balanced - cont.

djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2012
cont. - approach to liberty and security. You see - despite Rygg's self deception - people in countries such as say for example France are free - and have every bit as much liberty as the people in the U.S. - and they have a reasonable defense budget - and they embrace multiple political parties - be it socialists, communists, etc. So far from being some evil boogey men - the socialists are good citizens - who just happen to have an honest held political difference. Rygg may not realize - but in European politics - libertarianism is often equated more with anarchism - a more left wing philosophy, than the right wing view in America. See despite his rigid thought patterns - words often have different meanings to different people - it is probably too complex for someone who cannot have their own thoughts.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
I respect the right of people in other counties to determine their own course

You respect the right of tyrants to murder their citizens. (That's a statement, not a question.)
You would rather wait until a tyrannical regime like Iran creates enough U235 to put on one of their missiles to kill and contaminate millions. How many Iranians do you think really want this?
Of course Iran or DPRK won't have to actually use their weapons, just threaten to use them to gain concessions from 'enlightened libertarians' to keep funding their tyrants. Are those people charting their course?
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2012
Rygg - "You respect the right of tyrants to murder their citizens. (That's a statement, not a question.)"

Rygg makes stupid and false statements. I of course do not respect the rights of tyrants to murder their own people. I do however understand that interventionism is a very dangerous road - and should be embarked on in a very transparent and cautious manner. I not only care about the victims of Stalin - the evil tyrant, but also the victims of Pol Pot, and Mao, and Amin, and Hasad etc. ad nauseum - but unlike Rygg - I do not practice cowardly moral relativism - in which the lives of brown people are expendable - in order to protect my precious privilege. I don't use my magic book to justify turning a convenient blind eye to the suffering of others - that requires a convenient lack of self reflection. Complexity can be a curse Rygg - but it is important.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
in order to protect my precious privilege.

So you would rather wait for a tyrannical Iran to build up its nuclear weapons stockpile and threaten Israel, Europe and the USA and THEN what would YOU advocate to defend your 'precious privilege'?
You think it would be better for the US to directly declare war and attack Iran, directly, killing whomever gets in the way of eliminating the threat?
Or, even better, don't stand in the way of the Israelis so you won't have to have the guilt of advocating war? But then you are farming out the defense of your 'precious privilege' to others.
How is that different than staying out of the way (and encouraging) of a USSR surrogate state, Iraq, and a Muslim tyranny, Iran, fighting each other?
dj has still not defined how he would defend his 'precious privilege' from an Iranian, DPRK,or terrorist nuclear threat. Or maybe its not that precious to him?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
Rygg - "dj has still not defined how he would defend his 'precious privilege" Yes he has - he said that if someone attacked his country - he would willingly die to defend his freedom. Now Rygg has not been able to explain the formula he/she would use to decide which brown people it is OK to attack - and which ones to leave alone. Interesting dilemma. Do we attack N.Korea? Do we attack the Sudan? What about Palestine - they have weapons. Who gets to decide which brown people are expendable, and which ones we leave alone? If one is a coward, and uses moral relativism - it is easy - just leave it to the government - they know best...Strange world of contradictions Rygg lives in. I hate the governent - they are all stupid assholes - but I trust them with nukes - and to make decisions about which brown people should die, and which brown people we let live in our magnanimous generosity.
Mandan
4 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2012
I claim some authority on the subject of Iran. I have hundreds of friends from among nearly every ethnic group in the region, studied some Farsi, did graduate work in Ancient/Medieval history with a focus on Greek/Persian and Roman/Parthian contact, & I was a Christian myself, studied Judaism, and Islam.

The greatest gift we gave the mullahs in Iran was to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. He was the only thing they feared, the only one who had kept his boot on the neck of Shi'ite radicalism in Iraq, the only Arab leader who had succeeded in creating some semblance of a secular state.

Saddam a bastard? No doubt about it. But all religions had freedom to practice under him as long as they didn't oppose him outright. Ancient populations of Christians, Jews, and all sects of Islam lived without IEDs or Jihad.

Saddam thought we knew he was the enemy of our enemy, that we saw the value in the mullahs thinking he still had gas. As the rope snapped I'm sure his mind raced, "Are they really...
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
dj, the US did NOT intervene in the Iran-Iraq war, they encouraged it but did not intervene.
You said non-intervention was a good thing.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
he said that if someone attacked his country - he would willingly die to defend his freedom.

Good for you and you don't mind millions of others dying as well?
Why not try to prevent an attack in the first place?
That was the whole point of rebuilding Germany and Japan and keeping the US military in Germany, Japan and ROK to prevent future attacks.
Weakness invites attack. Don't you watch Wild Kingdom. Predators always attack the weak.
What's even more dangerous is for a major power like the US to appear weak, inviting mischief and attacks that in the end will result in more death and destruction, if you want to keep your precious privilege.
Mandan
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2012
Furthermore, as a historian, I would also be interested in some clarification of rygg's claim in one of his posts yesterday that following our Civil War "aboriginal Americans" had been emancipated along with the slaves.

In reality, blacks achieved very little freedom after being emancipated. It was a long, slow, bloody battle in the north under Jim Crow, and didn't even begin in the south until the 1960s.

As for the Native Americans, whom I consider to be the aboriginal Americans, the war against them only intensified after 1865-- but now with Sheridan, Custer and other veterans of that first "total war" turning their deadly trade against the stone weapons and rusty flintlocks of the great plains peoples and those of the southwest, northwest, and California, totally expropriating them, nearly extincting the buffalo to starve them, pushing them into concentration camps, even the "civilized" tribes of Oklahoma-- Christian farmers, settled, with a bicameral form of government.

How?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
Manny, you are correct. Once again selective interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS did not include aboriginal Americans as being born in the US.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
Rygg - "Why not try to prevent an attack in the first place?"

Oh that is right - Vietnam was about to attack the U.S. - so we were justified in laying waste to the brown peoples land - we had to - to stop them from attacking us. Oh right - it was a proxy war to stop the boogey man Soviet Union from attacking us. So when the U.S. got it's ass kicked out of Vietnam in 1975 - and the boogey man did not attack the U.S. - I was able to understand that the rational given to lay waste to the brown people's country was a f**king lie - and millions had died for our lie. So to Ryggs point - interventionism is a very dangerous route - and we should only go down it with great care - which I think is why the constitution gave the power to declare war to the Congress - but of course if you are George Bush - you just ignore that part. And so once again Rygg evades the question - how do you decide which brown people to kill - and which ones you let live? Moral reprobate.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
- it was a proxy war to stop the boogey man Soviet Union from attacking us.

There were Vietnamese who did NOT want to be under communist rule, but who cares about them?
If they weren't strong enough to resist the Chinese and Soviets, tough.
The US should have run way and let Stalin have all of Korea. Why should the US care?
"There are a lot of ways to destroy North Korea, Kim Jong Il. If we would really want to destroy Kim Jong Il, we should be brave. If we are afraid of war, I don't think we can have peace. We shouldn't be afraid of war. "
http://www.pbs.or...tor.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2012
"They trained me not to treat the prisoners as human beings. If someone is against socialism, if someone tries to escape from prison, then kill him. If there's a record of killing any escapee, then the guard will be entitled to study in the college. Because of that, some guards kill innocent people. Beating and killing is an everyday affair.

They are not treated as human beings; they are just like dogs or pigs.
"
http://www.northk...hol.html
Who are we to interfere?
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2012
They trained me not to treat the prisoners as human beings.

Wow I never thought you'd criticize the Bush administration.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
Rygg - "Who are we to interfere?" rygg is incapable of understanding the point that is being made over and over. Do you realize Rygg that you consistently evade the question? How do we decide which brown people to kill, and which ones to let live?. How do you decide that Iraq has wmd, and is a threat - therefore we should attack them - but N.Korea has wmd, and is a threat - but we do not attack them? Who gets to play god in Rygg's world? I have never said that we should not be engaged in world affairs, and actively working to make the world a safer place. As I have told Rygg several times - I would willingly give my life, in the defense of my freedom. However - because I am complex - I understand that there are consequences to attacking other countries - and this should only be done transparently, and as a last last resort - if that country attacks us first. Rygg does not care about the lives of people living across the world - as long as Rygg's cowardly ass is safe and sound.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2012
I have never said that we should not be engaged in world affairs, and actively working to make the world a safer place.


You have been too busy being complex to mention it.
But not too actively?

Attacking Iraq and eliminating Saddam was good strategic move to box in Iran. The US were attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan on one side of Iran so invading the other was a good strategic move.
Of course there was significant justification from Iraq's violation of its cease fire agreements and the corrupt oil for food program benefiting many 'progressive' politicians.
But now Iran can ship rockets to Gaza and attack Israel while building its nuclear weapons stockpile.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
Again - Rygg proves incompetent to even understand the question being asked. How do you make the determination to invade one country - but to leave another country alone. Why invade Iraq, but not N.Korea? If it was so f**king important to invade Iraq, in order to box in Iran - I guess we failed huh? So we failed in Iraq, and we failed in Vietnam - but Rygg has no compassion for the dead children - just collateral damage in Rygg's little game of god. I am getting quite an education into the mind of a sociopath here. Dare I say it - in this regard - Vendi is on target.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
And completely glossed over is the issue of the U.S. constitution that Rygg so highly values - that places the authority to declare war in the hands of the Congress - which Bush conveniently ignored - and listen for the outrage from Rygg - crickets chirping......
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2012
And completely glossed over is the issue of the U.S. constitution that Rygg so highly values - that places the authority to declare war in the hands of the Congress - which Bush conveniently ignored - and listen for the outrage from Rygg - crickets chirping......

How many months did Bush spend working to get Congressional resolutions and UN permission to attack Iraq? Many, many months.
Congress, including Hillary and many other 'liberals' approved the war and can at any time disapprove any war by defunding any war.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2012
"Congress Grants Bush War
Powers Against Iraq
"
http://rense.com/...rant.htm

"AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution"
http://www.gpo.go...l243.htm
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2012
djr - I am getting quite an education into the mind of a sociopath here. Dare I say it - in this regard - Vendi is on target.

How many months did Bush spend working to get Congressional resolutions and UN permission to attack Iraq? Many, many months.

Uppermost in that mind is clearly the ability to rationalize any atrocity - as long as it is a convenient atrocity - 100 million dead in Vietnam - meh - move along - nothing to see here. Any action is justified - as long as it protects Ryggs cowardly ass. Agent orange - dead children - half a million birth defects, depleted uranium bullets polluting the environment, land mines left to blow little children's legs off, cluster bombs littering the children's play grounds - meh - nothing to see here - it is all in the name of protecting Rygg....
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2012
dj, are you pro-abortion?

rationalize any atrocity -

You asserted the war in Iraq was not legal. It was.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2012
"Saddam Hussein was unquestionably one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. History cannot even begin to record the full scale of his atrocities and the effect they had on those affected and the families of those affected. But his most horrific acts, including the al-Anfal genocide, were committed in full view of our government--the government that we present to the world as a shining beacon of human rights."
http://civilliber...sein.htm
" Wanted by the Iraqi government, Saddam was forced to flee. He lived in exile in Syria for three months and then moved to Egypt where he lived for three years.
In 1963, the Baath Party successfully overthrew the government and took power which allowed Saddam to return to Iraq from exile."
http://history190...sein.htm
The Baath Party is a Stalinist party.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2012
"

A practicing doctor in 1979…

...He was arrested in his hometown shortly after the
revolution. A former cellmate recalled: "He was well-
spoken, warm-hearted, and brave. He had started his own medical clinic and, at the same time, had become a deputy in the parliament. He told me that he had barely escaped execution, had forfeited everything he owned, and had been condemned to a one-year exile. He said that they had sent him to Tehran to determine where he would finish his sentence. ... He talked about everything with simplicity, ease, and joy... 'I lost everything once before ... This time is no different. I'll start again.'" Yet, it was not to exile but to the 'Execution Corridor' that the revolutionaries sent him.

"
http://www.iranri...rial.php
Iran violates US sovereignty by attacking its embassy and kidnapping US citizens.
Iraq is a Soviet client state and invades Iran.
Who do you want to win?
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2012
I respect the right of people in other counties to determine their own course


I agree to, with the exception of theocracies. I think you should always be allowed to be a non-believer. That should be a basic human right if it isn't. Modern societies can not be built or governed on a foundation that consists of nothing but fallacies. Unfortunately that statement is applicable to the USA congressional tea partiers (as well as the libertarians). Compromise or die. Work together and succeed, or don't and fail.



ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2012
ith the exception of theocracies

Like the socialist states?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
Funny that Kuwait is hardly remembered now...But they did ask for help from the U.S. and George H.W.Bush started the war with Iraq to save Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's army. And we sent bulldozers over there and buried Saddam's army under the sand when they hid behind the dunes. Was it fair of us to conduct a war by burying the Iraqi army in the desert where they died of suffocation? No, not really.
BUT, it was quite effective and it saved a lot of American and Kuwaiti lives. Sometimes, the end justifies the means.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2012
Rygg - "Saddam Hussein was unquestionably one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century."

And so we armed him. And Rygg/obama are incapable of understanding the irony of that reality. They are intellectually incapable of understanding the total sickness of a state that will arm someone who is 'unquestionably one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century'. So how do you engage people who are intellectually incapable of understanding the moral sickness of this situation. The answer is it is a lost cause. Rygg and obama are a lost cause. I can only hope they are in the minority, and that despite them, we will evolve as a species. If anyone else is interested - here is a highly factual and interesting read on the U.S. arming of this individual who Rygg has acknowledged was "one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century." http://www.gwu.ed...SAEBB82/

And Rygg wants to debate me on morality - Rygg can f**k off - he is a sociopath.

Cont
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2012
cont - a telling quote from the above referenced article - "The Iran-Iraq war was a tragedy for Iraqis and Iranians, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and immense material damage. It was sustained by an arms bazaar made up of a broad spectrum of foreign governments and corporations: British, Spanish, Italian, French, German, Brazilian, Argentinean, Chilean, North Korean, Chinese, South African, Eastern European, Israeli, American, etc.,

Is there any hope for the human race?????????
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
dj preferred an Iranian super state?
"The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims""
" The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing."

http://www.gwu.ed...SAEBB82/

"Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard -- awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff."
Eason Jordan, 2003
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
dj extols his 'complexity' but can't seem to grasp how US leaders who desire to protect and defend the USA, have two choices, a bad choice or worse choice.
Using Saddam to defeat Iran failed, so the US defeated Saddam.
Ever hear of MEK?
"Canada is dropping an Iranian group that once allied itself with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from its official list of terrorists.

In taking the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK, off the list, the Conservative government is following the lead of the United States and the European Union"
http://www.cbc.ca...mek.html
"MEK was put on the terrorist list solely because the mullahs insisted on such action if there was to be any dialogue between Washington and Tehran. "
http://www.guardi...test-mek
Why does the US State Dept want to appease Tehran?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
"WikiLeaks revealed that the MEK staying on the terror lists was a constant demand from Tehran to its western counterparts.

Why would the mullahs prevail on their newfound friends in Baghdad to oppress, harass, and murder MEK members living at Camp Ashraf, near the Iraq–Iran border? Because it is just a harmless "cult"? Of course not – but because it fears the MEK's influence within Iran.

Why would the regime constantly assail the MEK as the instigator of countless demonstrations in Tehran and other Iranian cities, and imprison and execute any MEK activists and supporters, if it is so unimportant? Because it is just a ragtag bunch of dissidents? Of course not – but because it fears the MEK's ability to rally Iranians in support of a free and democratic country. In reality the mullahs have executed 120,000 MEK supporters and activists over the years. The number in itself speaks volumes on the MEK's popularity among Iranians."
Guardian.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2012
djr - "And Rygg wants to debate me on morality - Rygg can f**k off - he is a sociopath."

The irony, and sickness of selling weapons of destruction to someone who is "unquestionably one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century." is lost on Rygg. If Rygg is incapable of understanding so obvious a point of morality - my above statement is the only place left. Logic and reason are of course a waste of resources.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2012
Rygg - The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing"

Did anyone else notice this last paragraph? Let me repeat the last phrase - "And to keep the oil flowing" Talk about moral relativity right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2012
And so we armed him...understanding the total sickness of a state that will arm someone who is 'unquestionably one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century'.
The reciprocal of your argument is that we have also armed japan and Germany. Have we not learned our lesson??

Iraq was once an ally (of sorts) and instrumental in maintaining stability in the region. The internecine Iran/Iraq war bled off resources and fighters, averting an early Arab spring. Syria, turkey, and iraq together maintained the partition of Kurdistan, one of the most serious potential problems in the ME. Kurds have the highest repro rate you see.

No you don't see. You are naive. 'Perhaps if we refuse to fight, our enemies will refuse to attack us. Because we're too nice.' They WILL attack us because they WILL overpopulate and their children WILL starve and their imams WILL tell them it is our fault. And then they WILL attack. An old old Formula.

Infidels can be nice but never good.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
Did anyone else notice this last paragraph? Let me repeat the last phrase - "And to keep the oil flowing" Talk about moral relativity right?
But without oil western economies would collapse and millions would starve. Centuries of progress would be lost to radical islamism. But from your moral perspective this is ok I guess. Right?

You would balk at actually taking food from kids, but have no problem shutting off the petroleum which is needed to provide it.

Ideology kills. Yours is every bit as dangerous as any other fundamentalism.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2012
Otto: "No you don't see. You are naive." Perhaps I am naive - perhaps I see far more than you do. I am not willing to justify the murder of millions of people in order to protect my privilege. There are alternatives to fossil fuels - it is a choice that we make to remain dependent on an energy source that then causes us to kill millions of people.

"Ideology kills. Yours is every bit as dangerous as any other fundamentalism."

What ideology do you assume I hold? I assume you hold the ideology of American exceptionalism. I agree with you that ideology kills. The interesting rationalization you seem able to make is that they (the infidels) are sub human - and therefore expendable. We (the almighty U.S.A) are human - and therefore to be respected. Your post above indicates you are comfortable with the extermination of 'them' - the infidels. History is replete with examples of such cruelty - you disgust me.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2012
I am not willing to justify the murder of millions of people in order to protect my privilege.

Self-defense is not murder.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels -

Which are more expensive raising all costs of living.
he interesting rationalization you seem able to make is that they (the infidels) are sub human

That is what the Muslims think of everyone NOT Muslim. If you are not Muslim, how do you plan to defend your life? Or, if you don't believe your life is worth defending, even by yourself, then feel free to end your 'privilege'.
"And to keep the oil flowing" Talk about moral relativity right?

GHW Bush said it quite plainly many times for forcing Iraq out of Kuwait, keep the free flow of oil at market prices. That is a legitimate function of govt, protecting property rights and rights of association (trade).
What would dj do if OK was blockaded and there were no food imports? After all food companies just want to make a profit, why should dj care?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2012
Perhaps I am naive - perhaps I see far more than you do. I am not willing to justify the murder of millions of people in order to protect my privilege.
And so you die. And your family dies. And the culture you belong to is ended. And all the centuries of progress that rational people have toiled and fought to maintain, is squandered. Just because some RELIGION taught you that martyrdom was more honorable than survival.

It's not.
What ideology do you assume I hold?
I just laid it out for you. 'Im not religious!' says djr. But you have been poisoned by it.

You want a peaceful world? We NEED to produce healthy people with healthy brains who know how to live within their means. Only our civilization can do this. This is worth fighting and dying to preserve. You think we can do this without work, by wishing real hard I guess. More poison.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
That is what the Muslims think of everyone NOT Muslim.
You're projecting Swenson. You believe because YOU don't think Muslims are human that they must believe you aren't human.

This is a psychological defense mechanism very common among 'conservatives'.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2012
"I just laid it out for you. 'Im not religious!' says djr. But you have been poisoned by it."

Ducked that question totally - and also the question about your own ideology. Am I correct about the American exceptionalism?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
The interesting rationalization you seem able to make is that they (the infidels) are sub human - and therefore expendable.
No, this is what you want to believe. Our enemies - your enemies - are in the thrall of obsolete, ruinous religionist cultures DESIGNED to survive by reproductive aggression.

If the world is to have a future then these cultures have to be destroyed. Doing this is the most honorable, moral, and important thing we can do as a culture.

You are in the thrall of such a culture. The old testament taught how to conquer. The new testament teaches how to be conquered. 'Give no thought for the morrow.' If you're not willing to die for the godman then you are not worthy. Perhaps the lions will let you live. Unless they are hungry... and they are ALWAYS hungry, sooner or later.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2012
What weapons did the USA sell to Iraq?
When the US forced Iraq out of Kuwait, its weapons were mostly of Soviet origin, indigenous, and from France, Brazil, South Africa,..
www.rand.org/pubs...3248.pdf
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
American exceptionalism?
Sorry I don't keep up with -isms except perhaps for pragmatism. Do you know that one?

People in the west have been fighting to build and protect this civilization for millennia. We will continue to do so. I think that's pretty exceptional.

Hey guess what? I'm sitting in a gun show. Lots of kids running about. Family atmosphere. Nice and peaceful (so far). Think I'll go buy a t shirt.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2012
he interesting rationalization you seem able to make is that they (the infidels) are sub human

And this is the tactic of the current Obama socialists to attack 'the rich' or 'conservatives' or any other enemy of the state. It makes it much easier for 'enlightened libertarians' and 'progressives' to take away their rights to life, liberty and property.

"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. "
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2012
"You want a peaceful world?...Only our civilization can do this."

Please be specific - exactly which civilization are you referring to?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2012
"Sorry I don't keep up with -isms except perhaps for pragmatism. Do you know that one?"

Well you were the one who brought up the term ideology - so I wanted you to tell me which ideology you assumed I adhered to. You keep using the term civilization - and I need you to define it for me - as I am not sure what you are talking about.

Why the need to bring up being at a gun show? Are you gloating over the deaths of little children?

"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew."

As I have already expressed many times - if they come for me - I will be the first in line to take up arms and die for my freedom. I don't share you paranoia that there is some boogey man called 'they' that is preparing to attack America. The are certainly threats in our world - and we need to be working vigorously to 'defend' our country. I put the word defend in quotes. I do not believe in pre-emptive defense. If you do - you justify the deaths of millions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2012
"You want a peaceful world?...Only our civilization can do this."

Please be specific - exactly which civilization are you referring to?
I was very clear. Western civilization. Take off the rosy glasses.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew."
I do notice there a lot of Jews walking about. The pragmatic ones.
As Wayne la Pierre has pointed out we need to have armed individuals in all our schools. You know same as we do in our courthouses and other govt bldgs.

We protect politicians and lawyers with guns but not kids who are more precious and more vulnerable? Come on.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2012
some boogey man called 'they' that is preparing to attack America

They, aka 'progressives'/socialists/anti-Constitutionalists have been attacking the USA from its inception but more earnestly for over 100 years from within the govt, the press and universities.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2012
"I was very clear. Western civilization" Well it was not clear to me - which is why I asked for clarification. I do not think that term is very clear either. Western civilization - does that include native americans? What about India? What about S. Korea. You see - I don't think these terms are as easy to define as you suggest. So - having now used the term western civilization - which I would assume does not include say India and India has weapons of mass destruction, and also harbors radical islamists who hate the west - do you propose pre-emptive defense against these people? What about evil dictators such as Mubarak. Why did we not take him out? What about the Saudi's - most of the 911 operatives were from Saudi Arabia - as was Bin Ladin - do you propose pre-emptive defense against them - oh no - they buy billions of dollars of our weapons systems - they can live...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2012
Well it was not clear to me...
Well you obviously don't know much about it. Started in Greece, grew in Rome, spread into Europe, stagnated during middle ages, destroyed mesoamerican cultures...
native americans?
They are now.
What about India?
In transition.
S. Korea.
Absolutely.
You see - I don't think these terms are as easy to define as you suggest
Sure it is.
India has weapons of mass destruction
India needs them like Israel and many other countries; to protect their allotment of western civilization.
and also harbors radical islamists who hate the west
Harbor? No. Contain? Yes. So does the EU and the US
do you propose pre-emptive defense against these people?
Attack is the best defense.
evil dictators...Mubarak.
Mubarak was not always 'evil'. He brought unity and prosperity to Egypt and destroyed the Brotherhood.

But as pops swell and radicals emerge as a result, leaders are FORCED to use more and more FORCE to maintain order.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2012
You DREAMERS fail to understand INEVITABILITY. Obsolete religionist cultures are DESIGNED to outgrow their resources and overrun their neighbors of necessity. This is how they have survived.

Those which weren't quite so good at this have been EXTINCTED. Like the Aztec and the inca and the manachaeans and the Zoroastrians. The surviving religions evolved. They were more fit. They were Engineered to be so.

The west has been engaged in the Process of ending them. As you can imagine this is not easy. We rely on cunning and technology; they rely on their books and weight of numbers.

One thing is as Inevitable as the seasons: if left unchecked they WILL outgrow their ability to sustain themselves, and they WILL then seek to take from their neighbors what they need to survive.

You think you can talk them out of this? That if you are kind and gentle enough they will leave you and your kin alone? This has NEVER worked. EVER. You will be usurped and pressed into service or you will be dead.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2012
Dead like so many Copts in Cairo without western influence. Dead like a few million Hindus and Moslems when western influence was withdrawn and india partitioned. Dead like the millions of buddhists slaughtered by Hindus in the land of their origin while the west was still in it's infancy.

Dead like the 5 million Chinese conscripts during the building of the great wall. You see this was an effective non-western way of slowing growth; slavery. Mesoamericans were very good at this and also sacrificing 50k during festivals. We in the west frown upon cultures with such practices and KNOW they must be destroyed or they will overrun us.

We likewise frown on cultures which seek to maximize growth by restricting women to the sole activities of making and raising babies. This is of course essential to overrunning ones neighbors and we are understandably more than willing to END cultures which practice this. One way or another.

This is an old story. So is yours.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2012
This is an old story. So is yours.

Really - which story is that?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2012
See what happens when schools stop teach Western Civilization.
When people don't know where they come from, their heritage, they don't have any future.
For those who have a 'modern' govt education:

http://www.wester...ents.htm

VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2012
Sad that Republican Presidential candidates don't even know their own nation's history...

http://www.youtub...ndscreen

"See what happens when schools stop teach Western Civilization." - RyggTard

http://www.youtub...Mwlx2XxA

Conservatives are Morons.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2012
On the topic of education - I have to agree with Rygg on this one - that the government education system here in the U.S. sucks. I grew up in England - and my government education sucked there too. My understanding of history is very poor - which is why I am now doing a lot of reading to try to catch up. Vendi - you might be interested in this report on IQ level and racism and conseratism. http://www.huffin...796.html My experience on this board bears this kind of thinking out - watching two conservatives argue things like - all Muslims hate us, and that 'Western civilization' is the only civilization that can bring us peace and prosperity. I definitely agree that a complex understanding of history is important - I am pretty sure that American exceptionalism and the conservative doctrine do not lead to a good understanding of history - rather a very selective one.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2012
I am pretty sure that American exceptionalism and the conservative doctrine do not lead to a good understanding of history

Maybe, when you get some education, you will understand why the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution ARE so exception in the history of the world, and, the how and why the English speaking peoples have dominated the world in, a good way.
Of course you will have to get over the 'progressives' self-loathing.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2012
"why the English speaking peoples have dominated the world in, a good way."

I understand that Rygg is an ignorant and vile racist. Comments like this are perfect to demonstrate exactly how limited a mind can be. Rygg has never read a book on British imperialism. There are f**cking oceans of blood as testament to the vile behavior of my people during their imperialist days. The world will probably never recover from the evil visited on it by my stiff upper lipped ancestors in the name of their childish god. Rygg is correct that my education was sadly lacking - mainly because of the ignorance of a growing up in a society influenced by religion and self importance - where the education system and the media sucked (they still do) - but at least I am trying to remedy this - and am not capable of the evil self deception I see in Ryggs ignorant rants.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2012
"why the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution ARE so exception in the history of the world,"

I hope I am not the only one to see the irony of this glaring grammatical error - given the content of the sentence.......
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
the vile behavior of my people during their imperialist days.

Like ending the slave trading on the oceans?
If the British were so bad, why have most commonwealth nations been more prosperous than those not in the commonwealth? China welcomed the return of Hong Kong with open arms and have attempted to make few changes lest it prosperity be threatened.
What contemporary power would you have preferred?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
There are f**cking oceans of blood as testament to the vile behavior of my people during their imperialist days
There are fucking oceans of blood in every nook and cranny of human history. Do you not know this??

It was realized long ago that the ONLY WAY to end it, was to civilize (conquer) the world. By force. Eliminate the cultures which perpetuate it. By force. How else? Jesus said to turn the other cheek but his Salesmen thoughtfully kept the OT for this very Purpose.

Djr likes asking redundant questions and otto is happy to answer them.
http://en.wikiped...lization

-It's a long article but it is Sunday and I assume your flower shop is closed so take your time.

'When you want to spread peace and love in the world sometimes to gotta crack a few heads' -otto
(paraphrasing jesus)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Britain is so vile it produced people like John Locke, Newton, Wilberforce, Chaucher, Shakespeare, Dickens, Orwell, ...

I suggest reading The Sovereign Individual which has an interesting take on history.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
On the topic of education - I have to agree with Rygg on this one - that the government education system here in the U.S. sucks. I grew up in England - and my government education sucked there too.
-So when do you think you'll be learning the difference between subjects and citizens? Maybe it's something one must be born with-
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Eliminate the cultures which perpetuate it.

How does Auto plan to make the victors angels?
In the end EVERY 'benevolent' dictator will become a tyrant.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
dj, how do you blame the Brits for this?
"Furthermore, even if there are men who genuinely try and "protect" women and intervene, they do not succeed. In the Delhi incident, the girl's male companion was mercilessly beaten and thrown out of the bus. In Mumbai, men who tried to intervene were murdered. So who will "protect" the protectors? "
http://www.thehin...0898.ece
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2012
Eliminate the cultures which perpetuate it.

How does Auto plan to make the victors angels?
That's an odd comment.

In the end EVERY 'benevolent' dictator will become a tyrant.
You mean like Solomon? Or queen Elizabeth? I wasn't talking about dictators although they are necessary sometimes depending on the situation.

Was MacArthur a dictator in japan? Sure. That culture needed to remain destroyed. Communism is most effective at this. It was mirrored on the medieval church.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2012
"Now let's take the idea beyond technology for a moment. If there's something in the culture – say, a practice or a religion that you don't understand – yet has been done for a long time – don't call it "irrational." And: Don't expect the practice to discontinue.

Some things are opaque to us humans. Those things can only be revealed by time, which understands things we humans are unable to explain. But this method allows us to figure out how time and things work without quite getting inside the complexity of time's mind. Time is scientifically equivalent to disorder, and things that gain from disorder are what this author calls "antifragile.""
http://www.wired....ckwards/
The Roman Empire has been said to have collapsed, yet it still has a significant impact on our language, law, warfare, technology.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2012
There are fucking oceans of blood in every nook and cranny of human history. Do you not know this??

I am learning it. Do you think the reality of the blood baths of history give you permission to excuse any one of them? Surely this is what Rygg is doing when lauding the wonderful nature of the English speaking world - without having any consciousness of the atrocities done by said English speaking world. I think this kind of selective understanding of history is an example of the poor education system we have, and also of Conservative American thinking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2012
Were Qin and Alexander and Charlemagne dictators? Certainly. But what they did was absolutely essential to creating enduring Order in the world.
I am learning it. Do you think the reality of the blood baths of history give you permission to excuse any one of them?
Again you fail to realize the Implications of Inevitability. The west has taken on the Responsibility of ending the carnage once and for all. Watch and you will learn how this must be done.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2012
"So when do you think you'll be learning the difference between subjects and citizens? Maybe it's something one must be born with"

I am not sure what you are getting at here - could you elaborate a little more. I get it that a subject is someone who lives under an authoritarian system, and has no control in terms of the running of the system. Are you trying to imply something by asking this question?

djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2012
Again you fail to realize the Implications of Inevitability. The west has taken on the Responsibility of ending the carnage once and for all. Watch and you will learn how this must be done.

OK - so you are saying that going to Africa etc. in the imperial years and slaughtering untold millions of peoples was part of a grand plan on the part of the West to bring about world peace. Have you read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel?" I would be curious to hear how you feel about the slaughter of innocent people in the Americas by the conquering powers who were battling for world domination. Do you see the violence used by these countries as an excusable tactic in this inevitable process?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2012
dj, aboriginal Americans slaughtered innocent aboriginal Americans for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived.
Who did the Mayans and Aztecs sacrifice?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2012
dj, if the British or Americans are not perfect, who is?
Which historical power or current regime would you trust to bring about world peace with non-violence?
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2012
dj, aboriginal Americans slaughtered innocent aboriginal Americans for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived.

And I understand that in your racist world of moral relativism - two wrongs do make a right. They did it first - so that makes it excusable that we did it to them. But I do understand that it is very dangerous trying to judge any culture retrospectively - I don't want to make the error of thinking that I can sit here in my current position of privilege and judge something that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago - but neither do I want to make your error of moral relativism - or selective understanding of very complex issues.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
What would an 'enlightened libertarian' do when Iraq attacked Iran in 1980?
An Iran that had invaded your embassy and kidnapped US citizens and were still holding them?
"National Security Advisor to President Carter, "began to look more favorably toward Saddam Hussein as a potential counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini and as a force to contain Soviet expansionism in the region"
" the U.S. reacted to Soviet troop movements on the border of Iran by informing the Soviet Union that they would defend Iran in the event of Soviet invasion. The U.S. also acted to defend Saudi Arabia, and lobbied the surrounding states not to become involved in the war."
"In February 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took power and threw the Americans out of Iran, the Soviets stood to gain more than they had ever believed possible. "
http://en.wikiped...Iraq_war
Now many support Iran's nuclear weapons program.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2012
And I understand that in your racist world of moral relativism - two wrongs do make a right. They did it first - so that makes it excusable that we did it to them.
Youre missing the point. They dont do it any more do they? Their obsolete cultures have been destroyed. Aztecs are no longer sacrificing 1000s. Incas are no longer waging genocide against their neighbors.

Had these ruinous cultures been able to make independent contact with euro or saracen traders, and had they bought gunpowder snd shipbuilding tech with gold and cocaine and tobacco, they would within a few generations have threatened the west with destruction. Picture fleets of triremes with bronze cannon oaring through gibralter.

As it was they had million-man armies and cities larger than any in europe. And the mississippean culture was only a few hundred years behind their relatives in the south.

You should be grateful that the west had had the wherewithal to annihilate these cultures FIRST.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
Drugs from the western hemisphere would have ruined euro culture. Precious metals would have devalued royal coffers and collapsed euro economies. And so a Campaign was launched to systematically eliminate a dire Threat which had been known about for centuries.

Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
It was widely reported, and covered on this site.

"Vendi - you might be interested in this report on IQ level and racism and conseratism." - dir

The response from Consrevatives on this site to the story that Conservatives have generally lower IQ's was that the science was an attack on them and their political ideology.

The response from Liberals was that it confirmed their experience trying to communicate with low IQ Conservatives.

I note that Libertarians and Randites are even more slovenly thinkers than typical Conservatives since there ideology holds the simplest concepts of all. Government is pure evil. 0 taxation, 0 regulation, Money is God.

I posted a video link yesterday that listed the average IQ's from various American states.

All of the blue states were listed in the high IQ category, and virtually all of the red states in the lower than average IQ category.

There was very little overlap.

The lowest IQ states were the Mississippi's and the Alabama's, Texas, etc.

VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
"dj, aboriginal Americans slaughtered innocent aboriginal Americans for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived." - RyggTard

But it was the American founders who slaughtered over 8 million native Americans over a time span of around 60 years.

Millions more in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietanam, etc. etc. etc.

50 million or more murders at the hands of the U.S.A.

I left out the American revolution of course, and the slaves who died at the hands of their American slave masters.

Poor Low IQ RyggTard.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2012
RyggTard is desparately trying to obscure the fact that America has more innocent blood on it's hands than Stalin does.

"if the British or Americans are not perfect, who is?" - RyggTard

He is mentally ill.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2012
An Iran that had invaded your embassy and kidnapped US citizens...
Get over it R2. Yeah, there are people out there that hate USA. I hate them back, and I really hope they build a nuclear weapon, just so we can put that ass-hole country on first strike shit list.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
Ronald Reagan was buddies with Iran. Ask Ollie North :)
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2012
"Youre missing the point. They dont do it any more do they?" And you are missing the point - westerners perpetrated genocide against many populations across the globe. Here is a link that talks about the brutalization of the peoples of the Americas. http://www.skepti...icas.htm So in your world of double standards - it is appropriate to destroy a civilization such as the Incas - for their butchery - but you will give a pass to the western cultures for their butchery. I would invite you to look at the sickness of your ability to condemn genocide when it suits you - and to celebrate it when it suits you. We clearly have extremely disparate world views - and there is no benefit to having a conversation - suffice it to say that your ability to rationalize history makes me sick. I am hopeful that your thinking is a minority view - and will in time go extinct.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
suffice it to say that your ability to rationalize history makes me sick.

If you feel so badly about the history of YOUR people, what are you going to do about it NOW?
Wallow in guilt enabling others to do the same?
The Muslims in Egypt are now committing genocide against Coptics.
Various tribes in Africa are trying to wipe each other out. What are YOU doing to stop it?
Iran wants to wipe out the Jews. Do you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
So in your world of double standards - it is appropriate to destroy a civilization such as the Incas -

MY double standard?
I point out Aztecs, Mayans and others aboriginal American tribes committed genocide and ripped out living hearts to point out they were not innocent saints as you imply.
What was the punishment for William Wallace by the English?
It is worthy of consideration of how POWS were treated in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
German POWS in AR: "Several letters from prisoners written after their return to Germany thanked their former "employers" for the kind and generous treatment received. One woman recalled her uncle looked healthier than the civilians in Germany when he returned home, and far better than the walking dead returnees from Soviet camps" http://www.mvep.o...amps.htm
How Allies and Americans were treated by Germany, Japan, Korea and Vietnam are well documented.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2012
"He wanted to come back to say thank you for the hospitality he received in Oklahoma and to see Oklahoma one more time.

May joined the German army in 1942 and was sent to the North African front. He fought there under the command of German Gen. Erwin Rommel before he was captured by British troops on May 13, 1943. "
"May often talked about his time at Camp Gruber, said his niece, Patricia Powers-Simonelli. To anyone who would listen, he would describe playing chess in Oklahoma, working in a rock quarry, and the kindness and hospitality he received. "
http://www.tulsaw...IN410378
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2012
"The Muslim Brotherhood operates a carefully controlled network of torture chambers designed to violently dehumanize opponents of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, according to a journalist who exclusively toured the facilities this week.

Read more: http://dailycalle...FwOa8XvF
"
"The New York Times Cairo bureau chief David K. Kirkpatrick insists that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "moderate, regular old political force," despite Muslim Brotherhood-backed Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi's recent power grab and the Islamist organization's radical views."
http://dailycalle...l-force/
"Why Obama is standing with Egypt's President Morsi "
http://www.csmoni...age%29/2
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
Only R2 would support the new totally shit government Egypt has built for themselves. Instead of being a beacon of hope in the middle east, Egypt is now some BS religious oligarch, an Iran government for no reason. I hope the young revolt.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2012
Rygg - "MY double standard?" First off - I was talking to Otto. But I do have the same problem with your ability to selectively understand history.

Now - "to point out they were not innocent saints as you imply."

Show me where I ever implied the Incas, or the Aztecs were innocent saints. You can't. However - if you take the time to read 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' - a well researched and scholarly book - you will be confronted with the brutality of the European invaders who came to the Americas. A look at the link I posted earlier will give you a synopsis of the problem of your double standard http://www.skepti...icas.htm

To emphasize - my problem is with the double standard of condemning one group who practice barbarism such as human sacrifice, or slaughter, but to give a pass to another group - in fact to praise that group as 'civilized'. Now - to go off into a discussion of German POW's in the middle of this conversation is truly bizarre.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2012
Rygg - "Iran wants to wipe out the Jews. Do you?" Do you ever look at yourself and wonder 'why am I such and asshole'. It might be instructive to do so some time. Of course I do not want to commit genocide you asshole.

My understanding of world events is certainly very lacking. Compared to the majority of people that I work with and encounter here in Oklahoma U.S.A. - I am a f**king genius. Most people never watch the news, don't read, if they are highly motivated - get their world affairs from Fox news!!! One example - read the link I supplied above. Understand this reality about your own history - and then reflect on what you were taught in school about U.S. history -

cont.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2012
cont.
"during the years separating the first arrival of Europeans in the sixteenth century and the infamous massacre at Wounded Knee in the winter of 1890, between 97 and 99 percent of North America's native people were killed."

My wife went to school in New York City. I asked her if this reality was ever mentioned to her as part of her education. She said no.
Look at this reality - "{President} Jackson at one time supervised the mutilation of 800 or so Creek Indian corpses, cutting off their noses to count and preserve a record of the dead, and slicing long strips from their bodies to tan and turn into bridle reins"

Do you not agree that we live in a surreal world of double standards?
VendicarD
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
Here is an interesting speech before congress.

http://www.youtub...cCmTvt_o

These Democrats are clearly quite honest and intelligent.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2012
he double standard of condemning one group who practice barbarism such as human sacrifice, or slaughter, but to give a pass to another group -


Why is such barbarism not now considered acceptable in the West?

What are you going to DO, except whine, about what your people did in the past?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2012
97 and 99 percent of North America's native people were killed."

Mostly by epidemic diseases.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
it is appropriate to destroy a civilization...and to celebrate it when it suits you.
-Not genocide; culturecide. I am sure there is an appropriate Greek word for it. The DIFFERENCE is that the west is bringing an end to the endless Cycles of growth, decay, collapse, and rebirth which these cultures perpetuate.

Throughout the ME one can find multi-layered city mounds which record these Cycles. Order was established and lost time and again. Precious knowledge was painstakingly gathered and then lost, over and over.

Humanity's most valuable Asset is its accumulated knowledge of the universe. The legends of Atlantis and babel describe the tragic loss of it. I celebrate the enduring Efforts of Those who Run this world to protect and preserve it at ANY COST. Without it the species has no hope of survival. Each Cycle is harder to recover from. Each depletes resources.

A great swath of ruined land stretches from the Sahel to the gobi in silent testament to our peril.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
Rygg - "Why is such barbarism not now considered acceptable in the West?" Because we have collectively chosen to take a stand against said barbarism. In order to join the European union - an applicant country cannot practice the barbarism known as the death penalty. A further example of collective choice against barbarism. Read the article I referenced. You will see the fallacy of your position - which is this "They practiced barbarism - therefore they had to be exterminated. We practiced barbarism - but because we are 'good' and they are 'bad' - we did not have to be exterminated - we could be permitted to exist - and in time we changed." Do you see the ignorance and racism of your position. You see it says in the preamble to your Constitution that 'All men are created equal'. That is a sentiment I can get behind. You clearly are comfortable believing that only 'we' are created equal, 'they' are subhuman.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2012
'Guns, Germs, and Steel' - a well researched and scholarly book - you will be confronted with the brutality of the European invaders who came to the Americas
I read it. Imagine the brutality of inca plying the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the phillipines. Would you have met them with flowers?

You seem to think there is some alternative to fighting. What might that be then? Diplomacy? Appeasement? Do you think ghengis khan accepted anything at all but capitulation? If you refused to cooperate your city was razed and your people enslaved. And you and your family torched. As it still is in areas of the world untouched by western influence.

There is NO OTHER WAY than to fight. And if fighting is Inevitable then losing is absolutely NOT an option. Religionist cultures will all try to replace yours with theirs, and thereby continue the Cycles. They believe god will end them when they have conquered the world. The west has a more mature attitude in this respect.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
Otto - "Not genocide; culturecide." How convenient - and of course 97 - 99% of Native Americans (many of whom did not practice barbarism) being exterminated - some by means of training dogs to hunt them down - is not genocide. Read up on Black Kettle some time. And then the big question - who gets to decide which culture should be exterminated. Oh right - Ottto does - because Otto is now revealed as filthy racist who comfortably plays god - and decides which cultures should be allowed to live - and which ones should die. Have you ever done any reading on the conquest of the Americas by the Spaniards? Do your realize that we (westerners) treated (often peaceful) islanders with horrific barbarism? I am sure you can rationalize that into your racist little world view.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2012
You seem to think there is some alternative to fighting. What might that be then? Diplomacy? Appeasement?

Your ignorance knows no bounds. I am saying there is an alternative to genocide. The Germans practiced genocide against the Jews. We correctly fought the Germans - once we had beaten them on the battle field - we did not systematically slaughter them. Even many of the soldiers were captured and not killed. Then we attempted to continue our evolution by continuing with an international framework to try to assure that war becomes less and less necessary. I am glad that you chose the term culturecide previously - it shows you up for the filthy racist your are.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2012
Rygg - :What are you going to DO, except whine, about what your people did in the past?"

Think carefully about how contradictory your positions are. You previously admonished me about the importance of knowing your history - in order to not repeat it. Well I have spent some time trying to educate you about my history - and you dismiss me as a whiner - you are extremely stupid - correct?

As to what will I do about it. Well - it is kind of hard to end war and poverty and starvation single handedly - especially as I am very handicapped by the crappy education I received, and also the fact that I had the terrible misfortune to be raised in a fundamentalist christian home. At this point I am trying to remedy my poor education - and trying to learn to think critically. It is good practice exchanging posts with racist assholes like yourself on this kind of board. In the future - we shall see - enough on my plate for now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
once we had beaten them on the battle field - we did not systematically slaughter them.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. Germans and Russians systematically slaughtered each other for 4 years on the Russian steppes. In the Process many obsolete religionist cultures - orthodox, Jewish shtetl and ghetto, catholic and Protestant throughout europe - were destroyed. After the war the Process continued. Communism is especially effective at cultural destruction.

And by the way upwards of 200k German soldiers -waffen SS - died in western POW camps after the war. Not to mention those in soviet captivity.
glad that you chose the term culturecide previously - it shows you up for the filthy racist your are.
Nazism was only the culmination of centuries of religion-fueled nationalism. So was shinto Japanese imperialism. The west destroyed these cultures in the only way possible. Are you not happy about this? Or are you some kind of racist flower peddler?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
The world wars destroyed the last vestiges of the religionist monarchical cultures which had ravaged eurasia for 1000 years. Are you not happy that this misery was ended? This was the culmination of a Campaign begun in the previous 2 centuries with revolution and war, which finally ended the feudal cultures in eastern Europe.

You don't even know what the word culture means. Wasn't monarchy bad? Wasnt feudalism bad? These were cultures and the west ended them when their Utility was past.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2012
Otto - "Your ignorance knows no bounds. Germans and Russians systematically slaughtered each other for 4 years on the Russian steppes."

You miss the point - as would be expected from a racist idiot. WE - did not slaughter the German population after the war was over. Yes the Russians and the Germans hated each other - and killed each other in vast numbers. But - WE did not systematically slaughter the Germans. WE - understood that genocide (culturecide) in you world was wrong - just as WE understand that the death penalty is wrong. So WE continue to evolve - and one day racists like yourself will go extinct. IF racists like yourself ever attack me - believe me I will be the first to pick up a gun and defend myself. As a civilized individual - it is my hope that you racists will go extinct through a process of natural evolution.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
You miss the point - as would be expected from a racist idiot. WE - did not slaughter the German population after the war was over.
No 'we' did it during the war. Firebombing of dresden, hamburg, Berlin. Those 200k SS DID undoubtedly die in allied POW camps.

And just who is 'we' any way lotus eater? The soviets were our allies. We enabled them to do what they did. Good cop/bad cop. 'We' played this game to great effect throughout the cold war. Other nations had no choice but to deal with one or the other. Arab nations were sold inferior soviet junk that Israel had no problem destroying during their wars. You think this was LUCK?
As a civilized individual - it is my hope that you racists will go extinct through a process of natural evolution.
So anyone not with you is against you? I explained pretty distinctly how I was not a racist. But you are most obviously a bigot my friend. You learned how to succumb at a very age. In a monarchy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2012
During the Korean war perhaps 3M Asians died. In the closing months of the war, allied planes destroyed dams holding most of the water north Korea needed for it's crops. One million starved. Not one substantial building was left standing in north Korea. A culture which had escaped ww2 and the Chinese revolution - destroyed. Vietnam and cambodia were next. Communism made sure they stayed dead.

Today south Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia are still full of indigenes yes? But they have been given the chance to live within their means. And they are thriving as a result. They are healthy members of the world community. Cambodia does still have problems with Buddhist nationalism.

You have come to believe that learning does not need to involve thinking, only believing. Good subjects believe what they are told. Feudalism selected for compliance very rigorously.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2012
I am very handicapped by the crappy education I received, and also the fact that I had the terrible misfortune to be raised in a fundamentalist christian home.


Sounds like whining, and Obama, blaming others.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2012
Otto - "I explained pretty distinctly how I was not a racist. But you are most obviously a bigot my friend." I am definitely not your friend - and certainly not convinced by any self delusional explanation of how you are not a racist. You gave the game away with your proud use of the term culturecide.

"Good subjects believe what they are told." Fortunately I have been able to free myself of the garbage told to me when I was being raised. I did not understand how deep the racism and cultural elitism runs in some people - but this exchange with you and Rygg has been very instructive.

Just in case you did not get the message - I don't give a shit what you think of me - you disgust me - but the exchange has been instructive in terms of getting some understanding of another perspective - even if it disgusts me....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
Fortunately I have been able to free myself of the garbage told to me when I was being raised

Could have fooled me.
Sounds like you have fallen for the moral relativism promoted by 'progressives' to increase the power of the state.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2012
Rygg: "Could have fooled me." That goes without saying. Your rigid thinking leaves very vulnerable - I would suggest doing some reading and trying to get a little sharper on your toes - nah - waste of time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
dj, the Jews were forced out of their homeland by Romans and spent nearly 2000 years being persecuted and murdered and were nearly exterminated.
Is spite of such persecution, Jews became prosperous and some returned to Palestine and legally purchased land turning the desert into a garden, to the envy and hatred of their Arab neighbors.
After the Holocaust, Jews petitioned the UN to be formally recognized as a nation and were attacked by Arab Muslims in 1948.
What I don't understand is why those who condemn US actions and treatment of aboriginal Americans won't support Jews.
Is it because they became successful in spite of persecution? If American Indians become successful will people like dj stop supporting them?
Institutionalizing victimization doesn't help victims or their ancestors.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2012
Rygg - What I don't understand is why those who condemn US actions and treatment of aboriginal Americans won't support Jews.

I guess you will have to take that up with those who condemn US actions against Native Americans, and do not support Jews. Are you accusing me of doing this? Genocide is genocide as far as I am concerned - and always evil. I think that we are moving in the right direction in terms of becoming a more tolerant world. I don't see that as the result of some super culture called Western Civilization - that must be promoted above all other cultures - I see it as more of a natural progression - as we become more enlightened. I do believe that it is important for us to be honest about our history - I see you as being very selective about what history you attend to. The holocaust against the Jews is an outrage - but the one against the Native Americans - Nah - no big deal.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
I don't see that as the result of some super culture called Western Civilization

What is natural progression?
Using what works and discarding what does not work. Of course this depends upon what is objective of the 'work'. If the objective is individual liberty and prosperity, what has worked IS western civilization. Data is quite clear. Why has western civilization been so successful at increasing individual liberty and prosperity?
If what you want to work is NOT individual liberty and prosperity, then western civilization is not what you support. Of course this has NOT led to individual liberty and prosperity in human history but misery and poverty.
What is better than western civilization dj, assuming you want to promote individual liberty and prosperity?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
" "I was worried that the West was losing sight of what made it so successful, and perhaps losing those advantages that had previously been so important."

In "Civilization," Ferguson dubs these Western advantages his six "killer apps," which are competition, science, property rights, medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic. "The prescription must be to reinstall and update these apps, to take these six things and make sure we're doing them as well as we can," he argues."
"but that "the West was actually bad because Western power was based exclusively on conquest and colonization."

"That self-flagellation, which has been a feature of the academe for a generation, is quite corrosive, because if you teach a generation that the West was essentially wicked and its passing shouldn't be mourned, then your students aren't going to feel tremendously committed to its values.""
http://news.harva...f-doubt/
dj, the masochist?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
""The West, in some respects — not all — was a more successful civilization than any other because it was successful economically in making people richer than they ever were before; successful socially in creating greater opportunities, not least for women than any previous society; and successful culturally in opening up whole avenues of scientific and other inquiry that had previously been closed," he says. "Therefore, we shouldn't think of the West just in terms of conquest and colonization, slavery and exploitation. That's only a part of the story. The least original thing that the West did after 1500 was empire.""
"There's a reason why the West got so much richer, longer-lived, healthier, and better educated than anybody else, and it wasn't just machine guns.' This idea annoys some people," he shrugs, "but that's OK.""
http://news.harva...f-doubt/
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2012
Rygg - "What is better than western civilization dj, assuming you want to promote individual liberty and prosperity?"

This is a complex question. I was talking with someone who has a minor in history from NYU. He was saying that the construct 'western civilization' is seen by historians as a good starting point in terms of a conversation - but not as a really practical defineable or meaningful term. We live in a global community - and all cultures have been influenced over the last 1000 years by this mixing. Western Europe took a great deal from eastern cultures such as the Arabic cultures. My point is that I don't believe that I have the right to judge another culture in the way that you and Otto seem comfortable (which is why I conclude that you are racists.) There are examples of native cultures that lived peaceably for centuries. You view everything in terms of 'success'. Your pre-amble states that all men are created equal - do you not believe that?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2012
Rygg - "What is better than western civilization dj, assuming you want to promote individual liberty and prosperity?"

Of course I want to promote individual liberty and prosperity. I see the cornerstones of these things as being education, and a political system that promotes the rights of all (I loosely use the term democracy). The biggest problem I have with your ignorant and rigid thinking is that you will see only the good stuff, and conveniently ignore the rest. So - are you aware that the U.S. has less than 5% of the world's population - and 25% of the world's prison population. Is this your definition of the best we can do? So while the West (a very problematic and hard to define term) is certainly the most successful, I believe that we can do better - and have some serious problems we need to work on. In my view - getting rid of religions is one of the first.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
So while the West (a very problematic and hard to define term) is certainly the most successful, I believe that we can do better -


That IS a central characteristic of western civilization, doing better, which is why it has been so successful.

Maybe you should look at the motivation of La Raza, AIM, CAIR and others like you who continuously hype the warts instead of promoting what made western civilization so great.
As the Harvard article suggests, it is corrosive and detrimental to the improvement you claim you seek.

For example:
"Ramin Mehmanparast said on Saturday that Iran calls on the UN members, especially the developing countries, to oppose the membership of the United States in the Human Rights Council in the upcoming General Assembly voting slated for November 12. "

http://www.presst...n-unhrc/
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
How exactly would society improve if we weren't allowed to point out its flaws?

As the Harvard article suggests
Communist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
see only the good stuff, and conveniently ignore the rest

Who will see the good stuff except those in the west AND those who support liberty and prosperity?

Hyping failures plays into the hands of the propagandists in tyrannical regimes.

"The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said according to the council's statute, only countries with a clean human rights record have the right to join UNHRC mentioning Washington's involvement in killing civilians, torturing people in secret prisons and anti-Islam campaign as some examples of the US human rights violations.

Earlier this week, the Iranian mission to the UN strongly criticized human rights situation in the Western countries, including the US and Canada. "
http://www.presst...n-unhrc/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
Sounds like dj:

"darius178
Nov 10, 2012 6:5 PM
Given the history of the Biggest TERRORIST America, testifying Native Indians, Africa, Eastern Europe, Mid East.....how dare to candidate self to the UNHRC. "
http://www.presst...n-unhrc/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
Just in case you did not get the message - I don't give a shit what you think of me - you disgust me
This is only because you do not understand me - because your heart has been hardened. Go in peace but watch out for landmines.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
Fortunately I have been able to free myself of the garbage told to me when I was being raised.
No you havent - youre still hopelessly church-of-england even if you dont realize it. 'Take therefore no thought for the morrow...'
I did not understand how deep the racism and cultural elitism runs in some people
Yeah so explain to me how you got racism from anything that I have said? And while you are thinking it through, please keep the meaning of the word culture in mind;

"In the 20th century, "culture" emerged as a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of human phenomena that cannot be attributed to genetic inheritance."

"In 1870 Edward Tylor (1832–1917) applied these ideas of higher versus lower culture to propose a theory of the evolution of religion. According to this theory, religion evolves from more polytheistic to more monotheistic forms.[11] In the process, he redefined culture as a diverse set of activities characteristic of all human societies."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
Ergo culture has nothing to do with 'race', itself an archaic term. You just enjoy throwing insults like an ape likes to throw turds. Actually, this activity might be culturally-derived as well.
http://www.ncbi.n...2346518/
"darius178 Nov 10, 2012 6:5 PM Given the history of the Biggest TERRORIST America, testifying Native Indians, Africa, Eastern Europe, Mid East.....how dare to candidate self to the UNHRC. "
-I would have said frajo. Fear of fighting.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2012
Otto: "No you havent - youre still hopelessly church-of-england even if you dont realize it. " I was never Church of England. My religion spurned the Church of England - looked down on them as fools who were on the way to hell. So - you do not know me - make claims about me that are clearly false - and then you take yourself seriously.

"Yeah so explain to me how you got racism from anything that I have said?"

You have pushed the idea that 'Western Civilization' is superior to all other civilizations - and expressed no concern at the genocide perpetrated by western invaders on the peoples of the Americas (some of whom were peaceful). Justifying their annihilation in terms of pre-emptive genocide makes me very comfortable in my understanding that you are a racist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
Indirect evidence for the necessity of cultural destruction... China claims that its 'one child per family' restrictions have resulted in 400 MILLION fewer births in 3 decades.

This is in addition to the 360 MILLION abortions in that country since the revolution, as well as the untold number prevented by contraception.
http://www.johnst...311.html

Chinas pop is now at 1.35 BILLION. It is conceivable that without destroying the obsolete religionist cultures which perpetuated this outrageous growth rate, its population could be twice what it is now.

But war, no doubt nuclear, would have happened well before that point. The only thing that has kept northern eurasia peaceful in the decades since the world wars, has been the destruction of the religionist cultures which had made war Inevitable to begin with.

Obviously.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2012
You have pushed the idea that 'Western Civilization' is superior to all other civilizations
Western civilization encompasses many of your so-called races. It is culture based on equality among the races and classes. It seeks to allow true freedom by teaching people how to live within their means.
pre-emptive genocide makes me very comfortable in my understanding that you are a racist.
-only because it seems that that is the nastiest turd-word you can think of. It obviously doesnt apply. Try to squeeze something else out.

Religion-inspired overpopulation is the single biggest instigator of violence among all sorts of groups. It is the single greatest MURDERER and TORTURER of human beings the species has ever known. The west is ending it by replacing the cultures which seek to profit from it.

Your trolling is giving me the chance to learn and to expound which I enjoy very much. Thanks loads. Heaps. Piles. Get it?
djr
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2012
Otto: - "Your trolling is giving me the chance to learn and to expound which I enjoy very much. Thanks loads. Heaps. Piles. Get it?"

You are very welcome.

Just in case you missed it - let me repeat a comment I made earlier - that I suspect you may have just coopted.

"Just in case you did not get the message - I don't give a shit what you think of me - you disgust me - but the exchange has been instructive in terms of getting some understanding of another perspective - even if it disgusts me...."
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2012
RyggTardn's Libertarian/Randite ideology is based on the promotion of sociopathic behavior as a perfect morality.

Rand herself worshiped at the feet of a child murderer and regarded him as a moral "superman", even when she knew that he not only murdered children but used them to extort money from their parents, and dismembered at least one 12 year old girl in order to gain easier access to her genitals.

More can be found here.

https://www.youtu...nnmuYAdw

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Dec 26, 2012
"As it turns out, the children of Great Britain understand far better than their parents the reasons for the collapse of Western Civilization: lack of children, and lack of two-parent heterosexual homes. A poll of British parents showed that topping the list of children's most-requested Christmas gifts was a sibling (Britain's birth rate is below replacement levels, with most non-immigrant British children not having a sibling)"
http://www.breitb...-sibling

you disgust me

So?
djr
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2012
Rygg - As it turns out, the children of Great Britain understand far better than their parents the reasons for the collapse of Western Civilization:

First you guys argue that Western Civilization is the super civilization - the justification for genocide against native peoples - the ultimate culture that is bringing us peace and prosperity. Then you argue that it has collapsed. You have no clue - because all you can do is quote from articles that you read in the right wing echo chamber. You can't think for yourselves.

Rygg - "So" Of course you would not be concerned about your own attitudes. Neither were the Nazis. Yes - I make the ultimate comparison - the best term that comes to my mind when I read your justification of the genocides of history - is 'white supremacy' Otto uses the term 'religionist.' My hope is that you remain in the minority - and the tide of time washes you into the dustbin of history. Ideas are powerful - seems we should be vigilant.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2012
"Hyping failures plays into the hands of the propagandists in tyrannical regimes." - Ryggtard

Is that why you manufacture and then hype so called "failures" of the current U.S. administration?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2012
dj, have you watched Michael Caine in "Harry Browne"?
A fine example of the collapse of UK civilization.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2012
Rygg - "dj, have you watched Michael Caine in "Harry Browne"?

No I have not.

Do you see how you change the subject - and do not address the contradiction in your previous argument? You have been arguing with me for 10 days that 'Western Civilization' is the superior civilization that due to it's superiourity will lead the world to a new era of peace an prosperity. Then you quote an article from Breitbart - that states the exact opposite - that 'Western Civilization' is in collapse. This is a fundamental contradiction - and demonstrates that you are wrong. Ignoring this glaring error of logic - you forge right ahead with the now new argument - that Western Civilization is in collapse. You also introduce a new and meaningless term 'UK civilization'. There is no such thing as 'UK civilization' The UK is now a tremendous mix of cultures - I like multiculturalism - I am not a white supremacist. Ideas are powerful - seems we should be vigilant.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2012
Then you quote an article from Breitbart - that states the exact opposite - that 'Western Civilization' is in collapse.


Western civilization is collapsing due to the corrosive influences of the 'progressive'/socialists which dj is tacitly supporting.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2012
"the champions of standardization make the error of seeking to educate humanity rather than human persons. Indeed, I would argue that failure to attend to each person's unique capacities will inevitably lead to performative failure as well, unless the standards are continually lowered (as they have been). Furthermore, from an Orthodox Christian perspective, such an impersonal approach to education demeans the inalienable dignity of our children and our educators and reveals a moral and philosophical dearth among those who myopically view performative standards as the ultimate educational goal, "
http://blog.acton...que.html
"inalienable dignity" of all human individuals is at the core of Western Civilization. That govts and institutions have failed to support this is not the fault of this core principal but the failure of human individuals to live up to the standard.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2012
Rygg - "Western civilization is collapsing due to the corrosive influences of the 'progressive'/socialists which dj is tacitly support."

So - I call you out on a glaring logical error in your whole argument - and in response you double down on the error. You really are ignorant.

Your quote from your fundamentalist christian blogg bears no relevance to the discussion we have been having about Western Civilization. If we want to have a discussion about it - I guess take it up with someone who thinks that performative standards are the ultimate educational goal - I don't...

I guess on your last paragraph - you would have to conclude that the failure of the government institutions to support inalienable dignity - represents a failure of western civilization - does this mean that western civilization is not as all superior as you have been arguing?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2012
bears no relevance to the discussion we have been having about Western Civilization.

Of course it does.
Christianity plays a major role in the success of Western Civilization and its rejection plays a major role in the decline of Western Civilization.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2012
bears no relevance to the discussion we have been having about Western Civilization.

Of course it does.

No it does not - however - I keep trying to pull you back on task - and you are incapable of understanding the point. You spend weeks arguing that Western Civilization was the ultimate civilization - that is ushering an era of peace and prosperity - and then at the end of the debate - you cite an article that posits the exact opposite - that Western civilization is in decline - so that is directly contradictory - and you are incapable of understanding how you have no credibility when you make such blatant contradictions - especially when you continue with your spamming - despite having your glaring contradictions pointed out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2012
you cite an article that posits the exact opposite

No, the article cites that because of people like dj, who reject the values that made Western Civ the greatest in the world, it is in rapid decline.
As Reagan said, tyranny is only a generation away.
What created more individual liberty and prosperity than Western Civ dj?
You want to destroy Western Civ, what do you want to replace it with that has been proven to be better?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2012
dj, have you watched Michael Caine in "Harry Browne"?
Did you say thomas paine?

"Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it."
-- The Rights of Man

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."
-- The Crisis

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-- The Age of Reason

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
-- quoted by Joseph Lewis

-You're arguing with a trollish bigot you know that? Like medicine to the dead-
djr
not rated yet Dec 28, 2012
Rygg:-No, the article cites that because of people like dj, who reject the values that made Western Civ the greatest in the world, it is in rapid decline.

What values do I reject Rygg? Show me with quotes - what values I hold that you believe I am causing the greatest civilization in the world to decline. You know nothing about me - but say stupid shit that has not foundation. You are an idiot. I will list my values for you.

I value science.
I value education.
I value the complexity of the natural world I live in - which is why I garden, hike, and I canoe a local wild life refuge.
I value freedom.
I value conversation.
I value good food, drink, and friends.

Let me tell you what I despise.

I despise bigotry
I despise people who disrespect the natural world (throw trash all over the nature preserve I spend time in)
I despise ideology (especially religion).
I despise ignorance.
I despise arrogant philosophies like white supremacy, fascism, etc. Cont.
djr
not rated yet Dec 28, 2012
Cont. - now you know a little about my values - please enlighten us as to how you think I am a threat to the "greatest civilization in the world"

I am excited to be alive today - and to see the development of our science and technology - to the point that I am hopeful that I will see the time when machines become more intelligent than humans - and we enter a new era of rapid progress. Hopefully that will be the point when racism, and bigotry, and the need for a magic fairy in the sky disappear, and we can get on with the business of evolving.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
how you think I am a threat to the "greatest civilization in the world

What you despise is more important to you than what you value. Ever hear of the power of positive thinking?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
dj,how are you and so many others here a threat? Ferguson describes it here:
And in a another article, Zinn's distorted history of the US is another example.

"So his latest book, "Civilization: The West and the Rest," was mostly produced amid a mood of uneasiness, he admits. "I was worried that the West was losing sight of what made it so successful, and perhaps losing those advantages that had previously been so important."

In "Civilization," Ferguson dubs these Western advantages his six "killer apps," which are competition, science, property rights, medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic. "The prescription must be to reinstall and update these apps, to take these six things and make sure we're doing them as well as we can," he argues."
http://news.harva...f-doubt/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
the need for a magic fairy in the sky disappear,

If you despised arrogance you would have to despise yourself. Then again, maybe you do despise yourself like so many other spoiled children of the west.

"Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism'"
"He agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist's approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing"."
"Higgs argued that although he was not a believer, he thought science and religion were not incompatible. "
http://www.guardi...entalism
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
I despise ideology (especially religion).

Except your own?

"In partial fulfillment of this mission, we chose to address an enormous myth that circulates in our media culture; namely, the idea that conservatives are uniquely anti-science and progressives are uniquely pro-science. Nothing could be further from reality."
"Anyone who is willing to take off his partisan glasses will quickly come to the conclusion that both sides of the political spectrum—conservatives and progressives—are willing to throw science under the bus whenever it is politically expedient."
http://www.psmag....d-50975/
djr
not rated yet Dec 29, 2012
Rygg - "Except your own?" And what exactly is my ideology Rygg? Science is not an ideology - it is a framework for thinking - that is different than the blind acceptance of ideology. Now - if you see me as a threat to your childish way of thinking - you should - it means that I have communicated well that I despise your childish religion, and all the damage it continues to do to the world I am so fond of (being that I only have one to be fond of). Yes Rygg - I watch the tide of history - and am encouraged to see rational thought becoming more the norm - and childish religious belief losing popularity. You should be afraid of rational thought Rygg - it threatens your little game of control. You and all the other deceived seem headed for the dustbin of history - you are like the wicked witch "Help me Help - I am melting Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
djr
not rated yet Dec 29, 2012
Rygg - "Ever hear of the power of positive thinking?" Yes I read it a long time ago - along with 'The Secret' Basically - as long as you wish hard enough - the universe will grant you your wish. I am not surprised you fall for that kind of religious thinking. I am more of a realist - prefer to see the world the way it is - good with the bad - warts and all. I am pretty successful in the traditional N.American sense of the word - which comes from learning what I needed to learn about the economy I live in, and working hard. I am grateful to the U.S. for the opportunity for that success - but I don't buy into childish memes like the power of positive thinking - sorry.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
prefer to see the world the way it is - good with the bad

What's objectively 'good'?
What's objectively 'bad'?
I despise your childish religion,

Quite emotional aren't we?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
dj:
" In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into "non-overlapping magisteria," as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified."
"the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm."
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2012
Rygg: "Quite emotional aren't we?" Yes - I feel very passionately about these issues - it is literally life or death for me.

You are so good at quoting from other peoples articles - but not capable of thinking for yourself - really so childlike. Here is a quote from your nonsense article "Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe." Science by definition is not founded on faith - it is founded on evidence - pure and simple. You continually throw around the word faith. I do not have faith - I am content to see what is - and leave it at that. You need faith - so childlike.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
I do not have faith

Prove it.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2012
Rygg: Prove it. I have no need to prove that I do not possess something. As you are the one claiming that I do have faith - then the onus is on you to define what you mean by the word faith - and to demonstrate why you have some need to impose your thought patterns on me. I am very comfortable with the position I take - that I do not have faith - I prefer and evidence based system of thinking.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
"It is important to have faith, but not necessarily in God. Faith is important far outside the realm of religion: having faith in other people, in oneself, in the world, in the existence of truth, justice and beauty. There is a continuum of faith, from the basic everyday trust in others to the grand devotion to divine entities."
"One could say that modern behavioral science is re-discovering the importance of faith that has been known to religions for a long time."
http://www.edge.o...se/10527
Another example of what religion knew before science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
I prefer and evidence based system of thinking.

Of course you do.

I guess you are the most perfect human in the world as there are people to claim to be 'great thinkers' who actually believe things they don't have evidence for. They even wrote a book about it.

"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT? "
http://www.edge.o...prove-it

I am very comfortable with the position I take

That is a very subjective statement.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
@djr
ALL of science is based initially on the faith of ideas, and the faith IN those ideas as being correct and provable. If there were no faith in an idea's correctness and provability, it would go no further and the idea or hypothesis would languish due to lack of faith in it. But science insists on evidence and provability of the idea before it can be shown to be fact or at the very least, a legitimate theory.
So science goes about attempting to prove or disprove the idea, still going on faith that it may be provable. This is the reason for research and the building of specialized instruments in order to prove such an idea. Much funding for any project and its research is entirely based on faith. Whether or not the idea as a project is a success is largely dependent on how much faith and belief in the idea is put into it by the scientists/researchers. The entity that funds the research is also going on faith that the idea is sound, doable, and will turn a profit.
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
Go away obama_socks.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
Go away obama_socks.

The typical, irrational response of a 'liberal'.

The most rational response to an irrational attack on a school is for the school to have the capability to defend itself from such attacks. But it is immediately attacked and ridiculed by 'rational' 'liberals'.
Its the same, irrational response to anyone who questions AGW.
So Frankie, keep up the great work representing the 'tolerant', 'rational', 'liberal'.
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
Wow, that's one of your more tenuous segues Swenson.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2012
Rygg: "I guess you are the most perfect human in the world as there are people to claim to be 'great thinkers' who actually believe things they don't have evidence for. They even wrote a book about it."

Your use of the word 'perfect' is really child like. I think my way, and you think yours. I prefer my approach, and you prefer yours. Why do you have to introduce stupid ideas like 'perfect' You are so child like. So what that someone wrote a book. Can you not think for yourself (that is rhetorical). Someone else wrote a different book - try reading some Christopher Hitchens if you want a different perspective. Writing a book does not make you right. Great thinkers often write books that are in total disagreement. Stupid Rygg stands in the middle and says 'I think you are both right - because you wrote a book - so you must be right.' Rygg cannot formulate an original thought - poor Rygg.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
The study of faith in an idea can also be conferred on faith in the unknown or unseen, as with faith in the existence of the Judeo/Christian Creator, since faith in an idea has the POTENTIAL of provability with the correct instrumentation and not just mere belief in the existence. Whether or not the existence of the Creator can be proven through scientific research remains to be seen, but the "idea" remains and should be explored scientifically AS AN IDEA that has the potential of truth.
Past Biblical research for the existence of the Creator is fraught with Hebraicentricity (my coined word) that serves to describe the history of a middle-eastern "in-group" who happened to be in the right place at the right time, wherever that place was.
Yes indeed, that "in-group" appropriated many artifacts from other cultures it encountered. But ultimately, it did settle on a form of Monotheism that was far more acceptable than a pantheon of gods. Now, it is up to society to prove their assertions.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2012
"ALL of science is based initially on the faith of ideas" Please define the word 'faith'. If you look in a dictionary - it has several meanings. Which one are you using? I do not have faith - please everyone stop telling me how I think. I do not have faith - I do not believe in things unless there is evidence. You want mushy thinking - you want theology - go for it - just leave me out and let me define how I think for myself.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
Go away obama_socks.
_Frank the Crank

Make me!!
Muahahahahahahahahhhaa
obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
@djr
Your life is your own, and so are your thoughts, dreams, ambitions...everything that makes you, YOU. I don't think that Ryg has a problem with your ideas, whether wrong or right. If you are an atheist, that is your choice and no one has the right to diminish your character as a result of your choice. Likewise, if you are a fool, that is also your choice, and your choice is a result of your "free will". Free will, IMO, is the ability to choose between right and wrong, not only choosing the color of your tie or who you choose to marry.
This is also true of choice of belief and faith in a religion. It is strictly up to the individual making the choice, and no diminishing of the individual's character should be attempted due to that choice.
As long as no one is being harmed, faith in anything or anyone, or in an idea must and should be respected as the result of individual free choice, free will, and because that freedom is conferred on us by our Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution.
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
As long as no one is being harmed, faith in anything or anyone, or in an idea must and should be respected

No one has to respect anything, least of all your retarded opinions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
"ALL of science is based initially on the faith of ideas" Please define the word 'faith'. If you look in a dictionary - it has several meanings. Which one are you using? I do not have faith - please everyone stop telling me how I think. I do not have faith - I do not believe in things unless there is evidence. You want mushy thinking - you want theology - go for it - just leave me out and let me define how I think for myself.

YOU define what YOU mean by faith. Which wil be entirely subjective with no way for anyone to falsify and therefore non-scientific, invalidating your assertion of rationality.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2012
obama - You used the sentence "all of science is based on the faith of ideas" I asked you to define the term faith. You then launch into a diatribe about right and wrong, and free will - but never answered the question. Of course I have free will, and choice. Of course it is my right to believe in a magic fairy in the sky who can create universes with his magic want if I want to - and as you are aware - I choose not to. I choose to base my thinking on evidence - that which can be tested. I object to religion on for several reasons - please read this article and tell me that religion is some bucolic harmless way of thinking - that we should all respect - and should not stand up and condemn.

http://www.capeco...03170317
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
I despise arrogant philosophies

dj, what are YOUR original thoughts and please show they are original.
I choose to base my thinking on evidence - that which can be tested.

How do you test your original thoughts?
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2012
YOU define what YOU mean by faith. No problem - although it should be noted that you are the one throwing the term around - but obviously not smart enough to define the words that are central to you thesis - ie: science is based on faith.

Faith according to djr - the belief in things for which there is no evidence. Example - I have faith that Jesus loves me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
YOU define what YOU mean by faith. No problem - although it should be noted that you are the one throwing the term around - but obviously not smart enough to define the words that are central to you thesis - ie: science is based on faith.

Faith according to djr - the belief in things for which there is no evidence. Example - I have faith that Jesus loves me.

Or you have faith science can answer ALL your questions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2012
Past Biblical research for the existence of the Creator is fraught with Hebraicentricity (my coined word) that serves to describe the history of a middle-eastern "in-group" who happened to be in the right place at the right time, wherever that place was.
And this site is fraught with shitpostcentricity (my coined word) brought to you by the imbecile pussytard, who thinks that anything that pops into her empty head is worth posting to the world.

It's not. Pretty much everything you post is wrong. Pretty much all of it is worthless.

Sure you have the right to post here. You have the RIGHT to look like an imbecile, which you always do. But why bother? Where is the honor in constantly being obsequious?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2012
"dj, what are YOUR original thoughts and please show they are original."

Well - when I read one of contradictory posts - and I think to myself - that is really stupid. So that is an original thought. Now I can use logic to validate my thought - ie: two ideas in this thread are contradictory - they cannot both be true - therefore my original thought 'that is really stupid' - is supported. But notice how you mess ideas up. I base my thinking on science - which is a group activity - see I did not have an original thought about how far the earth is from the sun, and I do not have the means to test that issue - so I rely on other scientists who do have the equipment to measure the distance - and science agrees that the earth is approx. 93 million miles from the sun - we did not ask god about this issue - we relied on the integrity of the scientific process - you have a problem with that - then go to church and ask god about it.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
"ALL of science is based initially on the faith of ideas" Please define the word 'faith'. If you look in a dictionary - it has several meanings. Which one are you using?
-djr

You are correct in that there are many forms, definitions and applications of "faith".
The true and completely atheist person has no faith in God or in God's existence as believers do. This is a result of choice or free will in dis- or unbelief and lack of faith in the "unseen". Whether it is a bad choice or a good choice remains to be seen, and is strictly up to the individual who does retain a form of "faith" in his/her choice as being the "correct" choice.
In this respect, the individual confers "faith" in himself as having chosen correctly. If he is proven to having chosen INcorrectly, then he loses faith in himself UNTIL he finds the correct idea or action whereby he can once again have faith in himself as having chosen correctly.

The Creationist also chooses by faith in himself and in God.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2012
Sure you have the right to post here. You have the RIGHT to look like an imbecile, which you always do. But why bother? Where is the honor in constantly being obsequious?
-It's like with fat people. I gave this one fat woman a disgusted look the other day in walmart, and she made it a point of crossing my path again and again, to punish me by disgusting me repeatedly I suppose. 'Oh pardon me.' 'Oh excuse me I'm sorry.'

Are you trying to punish the people here whom you disgust, by disgusting them even more pussytard? Ignorance - your only weapon.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2012
Obama "You are correct in that there are many forms, definitions and applications of "faith".

Once again - you launch into a paragraph about god and stuff - but you never answered the question - are you not capable of answering a straightforward question?

Let me repeat the question for you:

"ALL of science is based initially on the faith of ideas" Please define the word 'faith'.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
Choice and free will are the perfect response to a conceptualizing of the individual's environs and other stimuli. But choices ARE based on "faith" in one's ability to choose well, and also faith that the choice is the result of ENOUGH AND THOROUGH investigation into the high probability that the choice is the correct one.
If after enough and thorough investigation of the choice proves that it was wrong, then the choice is perceived as having low probability and then discarded...but the faith in oneself is often diminished if the individual is success-driven and motivated. Lack of faith in oneself due to making a wrong choice is usually temporary until a better choice comes along.
Faith in God and Yeshua aka the "other Joshua",...is well understood to lack enough and thorough SCIENTIFIC investigation, but only UNTIL enough thorough investigation of artifacts by Archaeologists bring forth the evidence to prove their existence. Creationists have Faith that the evidence exists.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
@ djr
Science IS based on Faith in ideas, as I have described previously. Without those ideas, there can be no faith in them. Which came first...the idea or the faith? It takes an idea for science to explore, investigate and prove or disprove. But for scientists to WORK on an idea, THEY must first have faith in that idea and that it will work after thorough investigation and testing. Without faith in their work and the possibility of future success, there is no sense in proceeding with the investigation.

Faith can be defined as the belief in something or someone that exists or will exist or has at some time existed. Faith is also defined as a belief in an action as being the right or wrong one.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2012
so - Obama - when I ask you to please define the word 'faith' - do you not understand what I am asking - or do you spend your whole life talking in giberish?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
If you believe that your actions or your reactions to a given stimulus or concept is correct or incorrect, then YOU have established faith in it as YOUR being right or wrong.
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
That's not faith. Define faith.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2012
If you believe that your actions or your reactions to a given stimulus or concept is correct or incorrect, then YOU have established faith in it as YOUR being right or wrong.
-Or up or down, or in or out, or stupid or unstupid for that matter. Are you not sure or unsure of what you are trying to say or merely to infer thereby? Or not?

I think pussytard tends to drink a little on the weekends yes?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
Every action or reaction that we perform is based on faith that it will be the CORRECT one. Scientists do this all the time. They can have faith that a certain method is the correct method, along with the correct "tools" to use, and expect that their efforts will meet with success. This is FAITH...in their abilities, training, methodology, tools, and mental processes. And IF the project proves unsuccessful, they will try a different approach...and have faith in that also.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
Jodi Foster's character, an atheist astronomer, in Carl Sagan's Contact traveled to another world and spoke with an extra-terrestrial intelligence, but she had no evidence so no one believed her.
The objective observer must conclude she had faith, belief without evidence.
And that is the challenge for any observation made by humans, any human.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
That was a good movie. It must have been quite a stretch for atheist Carl Sagan to write a novel that basically disavows evidence that would have supported the scientist's faith in her experience with the alien being as having been a true experience. But he did soften a bit at the end of the story with the missing minutes. I do miss Carl.

BTW...have you read my Profile?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
"Q: Is there a volcano under the ice sheet in Antarctica. If it erupted could it melt the ice cap and flood the earth?
A: Philip Kyle of the New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, who has been studying volcanoes in Antarctica for 28 years, says studies of magnetism under the ice cap from an airplane flying over it gives strong indications that there is a volcano under the ice and that it could be erupting. "Nothing has been proved, but the indications look strong," he said. "The significance of this has been blown out of proportion," he added. Even if there is an erupting volcano under the ice, it's not going to melt the ice sheet. Essentially it comes down to the fact that there is a lot of ice and even a large volcano is not going to melt much of it. "A couple of years ago there was an eruption through the ice in Iceland," he said. "We looked at that. There was a huge accumulation of water under one of the ice camps in Iceland, but it really didn't destabilize the thing."
obama_socks
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2012
http://usatoday30...efaq.htm
=============
First Evidence of Under-Ice Volcanic Eruption in Antarctica

http://www.scienc...0720.htm
djr
not rated yet Dec 29, 2012
Rygg - "The objective observer must conclude she had faith, belief without evidence."

And this is the reason I have been pushing so hard to get you and obama to define what you mean by faith. So answer this question - if you received a message from a different civilization that contained advanced plans for what is clearly a craft of some kind. You had engineers and scientists decipher the plans - and build you this amazing looking craft. You sat in that craft - and were transported to a far galaxy, where you met and talked with beings that were clearly not from planet Earth. Would you not have evidence??? Now - Rygg - if you came to me today and said you had been to another galaxy, and met beings from another planet - I would not believe you - unless you showed me very strong evidence.
cont.
djr
not rated yet Dec 29, 2012
cont. So let me try to simplify it for you and obama. How far is the Earth from the Sun? How do you know? Did you measure the distance yourself? Have you personally conducted any experiments regarding this piece of information?

OK - good. Now I accept as fact that the Earth is approx 93 million miles from the sun. That is not faith - it is an acceptance on my part of the process of science. Scientists use evidence - and document their evidence - and other scientists validate their evidence - and we develop a consensus on what is currently known, and what is not known (what is outside of our universe for example). And so we develop science books. If we did not have consensus science - we could not print science books could we? That process does not involve faith. I define faith as the belief in things you do not have evidence for (like god). I hope that kills this topic - I am done.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
I define faith as the belief in things you do not have evidence for

In Contact, science had no evidence of the technology to transport someone to Vega in nearly zero time.
Which is why most theoretical physics, like string theory or any other wild ideas, must be taken on faith as there is no evidence, and likely not to be any evidence for quite some time.
Maybe that's why cosmologists like Paul Davies (http://cosmos.asu.edu/) (http://beyond.asu.edu/) has no problem with faith.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2012
rygg: Which is why most theoretical physics, like string theory or any other wild ideas, must be taken on faith as there is no evidence,

String theory does not have to be taken on faith. How many times must we go around this issue. String theory is currently just a theory. It has not been validated, and is not part of the consensus body of science. I am reading a book on string theory currently by Brian Greene. He fully acknowledges that currently we do not have sufficient evidence to validate this theory. It is currently a very early hypothesis about the building blocks of our universe. Go read a science book Rygg - and stop bringing up the same tired nonsense over and over. Is it so important to you that everyone share your weakness? Why can you not accept that perhaps others do not think the same way as you? Give it a rest - I do not have faith...

obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
That is your choice...to have faith or no faith at all. Nobody is forcing you or coaxing you to experience having faith in anything...not even having faith in yourself. It is simply unimportant to those who do have faith in whatever it is they have faith in, and it is a very personal part of one's existence.
I do not have pity for your lack of faith...in fact, I congratulate you for making a stand because it means that you have made a choice and are perfectly capable of understanding your needs and acting on them.
If choosing to not have faith is one of your needs...more power to you. I value my faith in myself, in God and Yeshua, and I have faith that humanity will survive all the coming tribulations...at least some of us anyway. My faith sustains me and that is one of my main requirements in life.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2012
My faith sustains me and that is one of my main requirements in life.

Because you're a simpleton.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2012
My faith sustains me and that is one of my main requirements in life.

Because you're a simpleton.
-Frank the Crank/OttoTroll

And YOU offer nothing of value in this website, to which everyone with awareness can attest.
You obviously have no reason for living and you merely take up space on this planet. Why you don't just end your miserable existence is a question everyone who comments on this site would like to know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
Trolls and dimwits and ryggtards oh my!

Faith as many of us know is belief DESPITE evidence. Science examines evidence, makes predictions, does experiments, collects more evidence. It creates CONFIDENCE in it's methods from their success. Faithers continue to believe DESPITE growing evidence that what they believe in, is false.

For instance pussytard continues to post with the faith that what she spews has some merit. But overwhelming evidence gives us confidence that we can expect nothing of value from this imbecile.

See this thread for convincing EVIDENCE that I and frank Herbert are obviously 2 different people:
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Overwhelming EVIDENCE, pussytard, is that MANY people are fed up with you because of what you post. It is crap. You will continue to be presented with EVIDENCE that this is so, and you will continue to make a fool of yourself by ignoring it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
String theory is currently just a theory. It has not been validated,

There are lots of theories, for example: God exists, but I am told by the 'scientists' here is that there is no experiment to falsify this theory.
How will string theory be falsified?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2012
In Contact, science had no evidence of the technology to transport someone to Vega in nearly zero time.
In case you did not know the movie was FICTION. Science in real life would have concentrated from the beginning on the 17 min of recorded static, as this WAS evidence that something had transpired.
There are lots of theories, for example: God exists, but I am told by the 'scientists' here is that there is no experiment to falsify this theory.
The god of the bible does not exist. The evidence has been presented to you. The fact that you continue to believe demonstrates that faith is s form of insanity, or at least self-deception.

Which is it rygg? Are you insane or just willfully ignorant? How do you explain belief DESPITE evidence that Adam, Moses, Joshua, solomon, nor David never existed as god described them in his book??
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2012
In case you did not know the movie was FICTION.

Of course it is science fiction.
Fiction is a great way to conduct thought experiments.
The larger question from such an experiment is how can subjective human observations and experiences be validated by any objective experiment?
If an ET picked you up and whisked you off and returned you with no evidence but your experience, how could you prove anything?
In a court of law, you witness a murder but have no other evidence.
Such events could happen to you, but even if you could not prove it to anyone else, the event still occurred.
Let's hope God appears to Auto as He did to Paul and Moses, but no one will believe Auto if he tries to tell anyone.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2012
Blotto aka Theghostofotto1923 aka FrankHerbert and about a hundred sock puppets, goes into a bar (pub, tavern) and spouts his hatred of religions, (particularly Christianity) and tells everyone there that the Bible is a lie. After listening to his hostility for awhile, he gets invited outside by some big, burly guys for fresh air. If he doesn't want to go outside, then the barkeeper takes all the glass off the counter and hides in the next room with his cellphone in case he needs to call for an ambulance.

Later, Blotto emerges staggering from the bar with a black eye, broken nose, contusions and a boot imprint on the seat of his pants. He then goes home to his mom's basement, turns on his computer, and proceeds to berate Jesus, God and the Jews to everyone who can read his posts. To all those who disagree with Blotto's rants on religion (particularly Christians), Blotto shows his rage by stupid ad hominem attacks.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Dec 30, 2012
The God of the Bible DOES exist. This is proven in every time, every thing and everywhere we look. No one and no thing can hide from God. We have 'FREE WILL" and 'CONSCIOUSNESS' because God made us that way.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2012
You're a simpleton.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2012
You're a simpleton.


And you're a psychotic, bald, ugly fatso sock puppet with a hatred of pussy.
You probably even wear false eyelashes.
neener neener
Muahahahahahahahahahhh heeheehee :P
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2012
Trolls and dimwits and ryggtards oh my!

See this thread for convincing EVIDENCE that I and frank Herbert are obviously 2 different people:
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Overwhelming EVIDENCE, pussytard, is that MANY people are fed up with you because of what you post. It is crap. You will continue to be presented with EVIDENCE that this is so, and you will continue to make a fool of yourself by ignoring it.
-Boastful Blotto

Your psychotic fixation on me, Pussycateyes and other commenters, and your habit of talking to yourself while jumping back and forth between your Ghost persona and your FrankHerbert sock puppet are highly amusing to everyone. You argue at yourself with the pro and con like a tennis ball going back and forth over the net.
It is SOOOO FUNNY to read…as everyone with any intelligence is aware of your game where you THINK that you are putting one over on other commenters who read your posts.
TAKE YOUR MEDS, BLOTTO
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2012
The larger question from such an experiment is how can subjective human observations and experiences be validated by any objective experiment?
Scientific experiments are by definition objective, not subjective. If done correctly they should yield the same results no matter who does them, where they are done, or when they are done.

This is called repeatibility. This is different from the repeatability of you posting the same misconceptions over and over, which is distinctly unscientific.

You should learn to yield to evidence like scientists do.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2012
You should learn to yield to evidence like scientists do.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
Scientific experiments are by definition objective, not subjective. If done correctly they should yield the same results no matter who does them, where they are done, or when they are done.


"The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion, and how only by embracing science's inherent ambiguities and paradoxes can we truly appreciate its beauty and harness its potential."
http://press.prin...406.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2012
If an ET picked you up and whisked you off and returned you with no evidence but your experience, how could you prove anything?
Well you could look for evidence like singed hair or a tiny implant in the back of your neck. Or if you were carrying a baby that didnt seem quite right.
In a court of law, you witness a murder but have no other evidence. Such events could happen to you, but even if you could not prove it to anyone else, the event still occurred.
Credibility in conjunction with other evidence can produce a conviction.
Let's hope God appears to Auto as He did to Paul and Moses, but no one will believe Auto if he tries to tell anyone.
-Unless I can write a convincing book about it. You know, like joseph smith or L ron hubbard or mohammud. It worked for them just like it did for paul. Except that paul didnt write 40% of the things attributed to him did you know that? Science tells us this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
You have it backwards. There is PLENTY of contrary evidence.

"the Pentateuch as a whole was the work of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra)"

-And sadly, none of these were written by the moses who led 2M hebrews out of goshen. Evidence tells us they were never there. And further, sinai and palestine were occupied by garrisoned egyptian soldiers the whole time.

Funny, joshua never mentions this. Maybe because there is much evidence AGAINST him ever leading his insurgent army on its genocidal rampage across the countryside.

Archeology (science) tells us that things were pretty quiet back then. It just didnt happen, which most experts, both religionist and secular, will tell you.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2012
Credibility in conjunction with other evidence can produce a conviction.

And there are many in jail for crimes they did not commit in spite of eye-witness testimony.
I read of a case in which a woman was raped while jogging. The individual IDd in a line-up was convicted but was late found to be innocent of the crime. Human observations are subjective, and even worse the act of observation affects the experiment.

"The Demon and the Quantum"
http://www.wiley....831.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2012
"The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion, and how only by embracing science's inherent ambiguities and paradoxes can we truly appreciate its beauty and harness its potential."
"William P. Byers (born 1943) is a Canadian mathematician and philosopher..."

PHILOSOPHER. 'Those who cant do, philosophize.' In the meantime people like feynman get results.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
And there are many in jail for crimes they did not commit in spite of eye-witness testimony.
So, whats your point? Theories in science are constantly refined based on new evidence. The more evidence we collect on the holy books, the more confidence we have in the theory that most all of what they say is rubbish.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2012
Scientific experiments are by definition objective, not subjective. If done correctly they should yield the same results no matter who does them, where they are done, or when they are done.
By definition all scientific theories based on these experiments must be falsifiable, which effectively means, only experiment, not their interpretations are by definition objective. The iconic example is the misinterpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment like the absence of aether. But what is the interpretation of experiment and what experiment itself? It's very narrow range of facts, actually, as many experimental results are ipso-facto based on interpretations too (red shift of galaxies for example). For example, we never observed electrons or atoms - only experimental artifacts, which point to these concepts less or more indirectly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2012
Scientific experiments are by definition objective, not subjective. If done correctly they should yield the same results no matter who does them, where they are done, or when they are done.
By definition all scientific theories based on these experiments must be falsifiable, which effectively means, only experiment, not their interpretations are by definition objective. The iconic example is the misinterpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment like the absence of aether. But what is the interpretation of experiment and what experiment itself? It's very narrow range of facts, actually, as many experimental results are ipso-facto based on interpretations too (red shift of galaxies for example). For example, we never observed electrons or atoms - only experimental artifacts, which point to these concepts less or more indirectly.
We have an entire century of breathtaking technological advancement based on the idea that they were right and that you are farting in the wind.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
And you're a psychotic, bald, ugly fatso sock puppet with a hatred of pussy.

I assure you I have a luxurious head of hair. You shouldn't talk about yourself like that anyway.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
If done correctly they should yield the same results no matter who does them, where they are done, or when they are done
In quantum mechanics the outcome of experiments should be quite random and unpredictable instead - if they aren't, they do contain classical correlations. These rules are arbitrary, after all: for example, during Higgs boson finding it's considered quite normal, that not all collision leads into Higgs boson detection - but at the case of cold fusion or psychic phenomena it's expected from some unclear reason, that every experiment will lead into predictable result - or the phenomena doesn't exist at all. Why this difference is allowed? One of the signs of the pathological skepticism is the application of the double standards to the subject of criticism.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2012
By definition all scientific theories based on these experiments must be falsifiable, which effectively means, only experiment, not their interpretations are by definition objective. The iconic example is the misinterpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment like the absence of aether. But what is the interpretation of experiment and what experiment itself? It's very narrow range of facts, actually, as many experimental results are ipso-facto based on interpretations too (red shift of galaxies for example). For example, we never observed electrons or atoms - only experimental artifacts, which point to these concepts less or more indirectly.


Hey Zephyr,,,, I never would have recognized you. Did ya lose your mad European scientist suit? (Is that sock in the wash?) Or did ya buy a "Hooked-On-Phonics" book?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
"The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion, and how only by embracing science's inherent ambiguities and paradoxes can we truly appreciate its beauty and harness its potential."
"William P. Byers (born 1943) is a Canadian mathematician and philosopher..."

PHILOSOPHER. 'Those who cant do, philosophize.' In the meantime people like feynman get results.

Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist yet his falsification concept is widely accepted by scientists.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2012
In quantum mechanics the outcome of experiments should be quite random and unpredictable instead - if they aren't, they do contain classical correlations.


I comment ya on your sudden facility with the English language,,, but I must point out, ya are still very much wrong.

QM experiments do not yield "random" or "unpredictable" results, they DO yield results that are constrained by very well understood probabilities. Probabilities are not unpredictable, and probabilities are not random. Ask anyone who has ever been to a casino, or better yet, ask anyone who has ever owned a casino.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2012
"William P. Byers (born 1943) is a Canadian mathematician and philosopher..."

Isaac Newton, English mathematician and natural philosopher.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2013
Just like the tooth fairy and Santa Clause.

"The God of the Bible DOES exist." - Sox

I saw Santa at the mall and on TV this year, which is conclusive proof of his existence.
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2013
From the article, "Broken down by political party, 83 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans say the world is getting warmer."
In otherwords, 13% of Dems are deniers, while a whole 30% of Repukes are deniers. It goes to show how effective brain washing is.
Happy new year VD.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2013
From the article, "Broken down by political party, 83 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans say the world is getting warmer."
In otherwords, 13% of Dems are deniers, while a whole 30% of Repukes are deniers. It goes to show how effective brain washing is.
Happy new year VD.

What about the roughly 30% who claim no party affiliation?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2013
Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist yet his falsification concept is widely accepted by scientists.
-Indeed and when he produced his falsification stuff he was doing science, not philosophy.
Isaac Newton, English mathematician and natural philosopher.
-Indeed and back then scientists were referred to as philosophers. Newton by the way was into all sorts of unscientific crap.

"Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science.[citation needed] He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza...In a manuscript he wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060."

-See?
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2013
it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.

http://www.swsc-j...emid=129
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Jan 05, 2013
R2 asks:
What about the roughly 30% who claim no party affiliation?

That's easy, 70% of that 30% also believes global warming to be real.

You conservatives need to give it up. You're so so so on the wrong side of what is *not* a scientific debate, but a science observation.