The politics of climate change

Apr 29, 2013

U.S. residents who believe in the scientific consensus on global warming are more likely to support government action to curb emissions, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, according to a study led by a Michigan State University sociologist.

However, a political divide remains on the existence of despite the fact that the vast majority of scientists believe it is real, said Aaron M. McCright, associate professor in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Sociology.

The study, in the journal Climatic Change, is one of the first to examine the influence of on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action to reduce .

"The more people believe scientists agree about climate change, the more willing they are to support government action, even when their party affiliation is taken into account," McCright said. "But there is still a political split on levels of perceived scientific agreement, in that fewer Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and believe there is a scientific consensus."

McCright and colleagues analyzed a Gallup survey of 1,024 adults who were asked about their views on climate change.

The results reaffirm the success of what McCright calls the "denial machine" – an organized movement to undercut the scientific reality of climate change during the past two decades.

McCright said the first step in dealing with climate change is getting both sides of the political spectrum to accept the scientific consensus. At that point, he said, policymakers can go about the task of coming up with an approach to combat it.

He said both the government and industry should be involved in that effort.

"Certainly we can't solve all our problems with through government regulations – in fact, for some problems, government regulations might make it worse," McCright said. "And so we need a combination of market-based solutions and government regulations."

Explore further: US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists' role in swaying public opinion studied

Nov 05, 2012

(Phys.org)—Whatever their political persuasion, people are more likely to believe that global warming is caused by humans if they find out that most climate change scientists believe this is the case.

Support for climate change action drops, poll finds

May 08, 2012

Americans' support for government action on global warming remains high but has dropped during the past two years, according to a new survey by Stanford researchers in collaboration with Ipsos Public Affairs. Political rhetoric ...

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Apr 18, 2014

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 385

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (33) Apr 29, 2013
The issue is not whether changing climate is real since it has been changing for thousands of years.
The issue is do we trust Al Gore and Giaist climatologists who assert that if socialism isn't imposed immediately, the seas will rise and all sorts of calamity will result.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (51) Apr 29, 2013
That's exactly correct. The far left clealry wished to use AGW as a foot in the door to implememt their socialists politics. That's why so many were against it. If the policies are not damaging to economies, capitalism, and leave freedom intact, many more would accept them. But as it is, the far left who promote AGW as a immediate crisis also desire anti-capitalist and social engineering.

Presently, global warming has slowed, which is counter to what climate scientists thought,... so if this trend continues for the next five years or so it becomes a demonstration of failed understanding.
Sean_W
1.9 / 5 (27) Apr 29, 2013
Consensus-science: like old fashioned science but with new and improved groupthink. Only those who accept the consensus count as scientists making the consensus 97.7% pure and gentle on your thin skin.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (43) Apr 29, 2013
"Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless."

Consensus-science: like old fashioned science but with new and improved groupthink. Only those who accept the consensus count as scientists making the consensus 97.7% pure and gentle on your thin skin.


To be a "climatologist" is to de facto believe in AGW.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2013
Consensus-science: like old fashioned science but with new and improved groupthink. Only those who accept the consensus count as scientists making the consensus 97.7% pure and gentle on your thin skin.


Rubbish: Climate science behaves no different than any other science when it comes to the science done at the coal-face. Outside of that, yes there are agendas, media spin etc. Still does not invalidate the science which via consensus is done the same as it ever was.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (24) Apr 29, 2013
consensus is done the same as it ever was.

I guess you are correct. Anyone who challenges the consensus is not published and is ostracized until the paradigm shifts.
That is the way real science is done as Kuhn describes it.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (21) Apr 29, 2013
"A Purdue University-led team of researchers discovered sunlit snow to be the major source of atmospheric bromine in the Arctic, the key to unique chemical reactions that purge pollutants and destroy ozone"
http://www.purdue...tic.html
Ozone is destroyed naturally?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (20) Apr 29, 2013
"LED Light Bulbs Recalled by Lighting Science Group Due to Fire Hazard"
http://www.cpsc.g...e-Group/

While the same govt bans incandescent lamps.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2013
And we're being poisoned by toxic CFLs...

http://www.youtub...3rbHFwQU

While the govt bans incandescent lamps.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 29, 2013
Why are your Corporate slave masters selling defective products to consumers Tard Boy?

It is a good thing that the government caught them and forced the recall isn't it?

"LED Light Bulbs Recalled by Lighting Science Group Due to Fire Hazard" - RyggTard
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (21) Apr 29, 2013
Astonishing to see so many who put their own personal policy agendas and creature comforts ahead of facts that have far reaching consequences for future generations.

One can but hope that they will be reincarnate, with intact memories of their earlier follies, at some future time so as to personally experience that which they denied.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2013
"And we're being poisoned by toxic CFLs." - CantDriveTooStupid

What about your toxic PC? Your toxic Phone? Your toxic alarm clock? Your toxic carpet? Your toxic upholstery, Or Hahahahah the trillions of florescent lights used in homes and offices all over the country.

What do you think is in those 4 foot florescent bulbs in your garage? Or your workplace?

Oh man. If you think that CFL's are highly toxic, then you are even dumber than you look.

All florescent bulbs contain minute quantities of mercury which slowly gets absorbed into the glass as the bulb ages.

And of course the amount of mercury emitted by burning the coal needed to power a regular incandescent bulb is much larger than the amount of mercury used in a CFL.

I liked the part in the report where the idiot reporter takes her CLF bulb to a recycling depot and complains about how much gasoline she burned by doing so.

Why isn't she complaining about how much gasoline she burns taking a piece of paper to the dump?
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2013
"A Purdue University-led team of researchers" - RyggTard

RyggTard never seems to be bright enough to read the entire article he references.

If he had he would have read...

"Ozone in the lower atmosphere is different from the stratospheric ozone involved in the planet's protective ozone layer. This lower atmosphere ozone is a greenhouse gas that is toxic to humans and plants..."

Poor RyggTard. He spends so much time lying to himself.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2013
"Ozone is destroyed naturally?" - RyggTard

If it wasn't then the universe would be full of nothing but ozone.

Poor RyggTard. The slightest hint of fact confuses him.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2013
"Anyone who challenges the consensus" - RyggTard

Are you referring to the paradigm shift that Conservative Whack Tards are predicting will come soon after the coming Zombie Apocalypse and the take over of the U.S. by the U.N.?

There is just no end to TeaPublican/Randite Stupidity is there?

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2013
Yeap! Yeap! That is astounding how selfish and controlling the nut cases of the rightwing want to be. They have no respect for their next generation or concern for the environmental legacy they leave behind. It seems very easy for rightwingnuts to ignore everything except their own mind's greed and their nature to dismiss the pollution they create as normal. I find these POS's really disgusting with little to say, or weak arguments at best.

At best I think these POS's all need to be forcible rounded up and shipped to Al-Gore's FEMA Region 9 disarmed internment and environmental re-education camp! I fully expect the Obama black boots to be marching soon. It couldn't happen soon enough for me, a Liberal!
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2013
But by your own admission, the polar ice caps of Mars are melting and Pluto is warming.

How does a cooling sun produce a warmer Mars and Pluto?

"Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. " - NumenTard

Make up your mind Retard. Is the sun causing the solar system to heat up or not?

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 30, 2013
Correct.

"They have no respect for their next generation or concern for the environmental legacy they leave behind." - HowHot

I have had literally dozens of Republicans and Libertarians tell me that they owe future generations nothing since they get nothing in return from future generations in return for their consideration.

In other words, since there is nothing in it for them, future generations can go to hell.

Isn't it interesting how Conservatives who claim to have a reverence for the past, have no respect or concern for the future.

Conservatism is cancer.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2013
Sean confuses scientific consensus with science by consensus..

"Consensus-science:" - SeanOfTheTard

Sean is pinning his hopes on the theory that maybe AIDS really can be cured by sleeping with an Underage Virgin.

The scientific consensus tells us that this isn't true, but according to Sean, that is just science by consensus.

Moron...

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2013
Clearly NumenTard's objection to Global warming is purely political.

He fears the steps that must be taken to combat it.

"The far left clealry wished to use AGW as a foot in the door to implememt their socialists politics." - NumenTard

Fear is the primary motivation for Conservatives.

They are too cowardly, too immoral, and too stupid to act.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2013
Poor RyggTard. The science is settled. Al Gore Won.

That is just another plain reality that you are incapable of accepting due to your obvious intellectual inferiority.

"The issue is do we trust Al Gore and Giaist climatologists who assert that if socialism isn't imposed immediately, the seas will rise and all sorts of calamity will result." - RyggTard
barakn
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 30, 2013
And we're being poisoned by toxic CFLs...

http://www.youtub...3rbHFwQU

While the govt bans incandescent lamps.

No matter how many times someone explains to you that the amount of mercury prevented from escaping into the atmosphere because of the reduced amount coal required to light the CFL is far greater than the mercury in the CFL, you're just going to ignore it, forget it, and then make your lame, stupid, false argument again, aren't you.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 30, 2013
And we're being poisoned by toxic CFLs...

http://www.youtub...3rbHFwQU

While the govt bans incandescent lamps.

No matter how many times someone explains to you that the amount of mercury prevented from escaping into the atmosphere because of the reduced amount coal required to light the CFL is far greater than the mercury in the CFL, you're just going to ignore it, forget it, and then make your lame, stupid, false argument again, aren't you.

Released into the atmosphere way over there by the poor people, or directly into my or my child's lungs when the bulb breaks in the kitchen. I say give it to the poor.
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (20) Apr 30, 2013
And we're being poisoned by toxic CFLs...

http://www.youtub...3rbHFwQU

While the govt bans incandescent lamps.

No matter how many times someone explains to you that the amount of mercury prevented from escaping into the atmosphere because of the reduced amount coal required to light the CFL is far greater than the mercury in the CFL, you're just going to ignore it, forget it, and then make your lame, stupid, false argument again, aren't you.

Released into the atmosphere way over there by the poor people, or directly into my or my child's lungs when the bulb breaks in the kitchen. I say give it to the poor.

You are one sick selfish puppy.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2013
consensus is done the same as it ever was.

I guess you are correct. Anyone who challenges the consensus is not published and is ostracized until the paradigm shifts.
That is the way real science is done as Kuhn describes it.


Goes all the way back to at least Galileo. So stop bleating about it.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2013
I have had literally dozens of Republicans and Libertarians tell me that they owe future generations nothing since they get nothing in return from future generations in return for their consideration. In other words, since there is nothing in it for them, future generations can go to hell.
Isn't it interesting how Conservatives who claim to have a reverence for the past, have no respect or concern for the future...


I actually consider the attitude you discus, contemptible. A selfish abhorant human trait.
The "Conservatism" you mention seems peculiar to the US. Conservatives here are very pro-Green.
Is it more, what you call "Libertarianism" that holds the mind-set.
This idea that the world is out to get you - so I must have my sanctuary ready for the holocaust? I don't trust anyone in authority?
Err we live in a society, don't we? You know with other people. A world-wide one at that. Though I know by experience the US media doesn't think it exists unless US troops are there.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (20) Apr 30, 2013

Rubbish: Climate science behaves no different than any other science when it comes to the science done at the coal-face. Outside of that, yes there are agendas, media spin etc. Still does not invalidate the science which via consensus is done the same as it ever was.
-- runrig
One word to you sir - Climategate. In the TRUE scientific disciplines, there are those who have been made outcasts for less. But in "climate science" however, those who brought shame and disrepute are ceremoniously returned to their cushy jobs and anointed heroes of the cause by the cult. They continue to hide behind the politics and protection of the IPCC, where they can safely push their AGW propaganda.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (19) Apr 30, 2013
That, AO, is pure unadulterated BS.

Are you a congenital liar or one of convenience of the moment?
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 30, 2013
cantdrive: "Released into the atmosphere way over there by the poor people, or directly into my or my child's lungs when the bulb breaks in the kitchen. I say give it to the poor."

Did you really say that cantdrive? Do you not have any understanding of what it means? Poor people on the other side of the world can die - but your child is precious. We know there are monsters in the world - but generally they have a couple of functioning brain cells - and would not advertise their hatred on a science web site. You are evil and stupid.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 30, 2013
Astonishing to see so many who put their own personal policy agendas and creature comforts ahead of facts that have far reaching consequences for future generations.


Like the 'liberal'/socialists who are destroying economies for their political power? It's NOT a coincidence AlGore and other 'liberals' have joined the AGW religion. It furthers their power.
If you won't believe this, how many 'liberals' have proposed free market, or even high tech solutions (like nuclear power) to their AGW problem? Few to none.
Therefore it is the AGWite and their fellow travelers that are putting THEIR personal agenda, power, before future generations.
If the 'liberals' were really worried about future generations wouldn't they modify social security and Medicare to keep them solvent?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 30, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.


Prat ... not every interpretation is predicated on conspiracy or reduction to religion. A religion is a belief in something passed down from ancestry. With no empirical proof by observation in real time - then religion is merely a prop for the psyche, a reflex to make the world easier to comprehend. This is a science site and religion plays no part. Look up science in a dictionary. The Galileo allusion is what should be obvious to a non-prejudiced mind. .... That science can be a threat to the bigoted and ignorant.
I must thank you for a live demonstartion of that.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Apr 30, 2013
That science can be a threat to the bigoted and ignorant.

Like those who follow the AGW faith?
They are the ones who stifle science and excommunicate those who challenge their faith.
djr
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2013
Rygg: "LED Light Bulbs Recalled by Lighting Science Group Due to Fire Hazard"

Thank goodness we have Rygg to unearth the truth for us. LED lightbulbs are part of the AGW conspiracy - designed to kill the conservatives who protect our freedoms in their sleep. All that is left now is to determine who masterminded this dastardly scheme - was it Barach Obama, or Hugo Chavez?
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2013
Like those who follow the AGW faith?

Like those who see reds under every bed?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 30, 2013
Rygg: "LED Light Bulbs Recalled by Lighting Science Group Due to Fire Hazard"

Thank goodness we have Rygg to unearth the truth for us. LED lightbulbs are part of the AGW conspiracy - designed to kill the conservatives who protect our freedoms in their sleep. All that is left now is to determine who masterminded this dastardly scheme - was it Barach Obama, or Hugo Chavez?

"Lighting Science issues recall of 554,000 LED bulbs because of fire hazard"
http://www.geek.c...1543528/

"The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the "L Prize," for any manufacturer that could create a "green" but affordable light bulb."
http://articles.w...-60-watt
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2013
I am not questioning your facts Rygg - obviously a dastardly scheme hatched up by the evil socialists - so was it Obama, in the library (that is a socialist institution), with the lead pipe (made by the pipe fitters union)?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 30, 2013
I am not questioning your facts Rygg - obviously a dastardly scheme hatched up by the evil socialists - so was it Obama, in the library (that is a socialist institution), with the lead pipe (made by the pipe fitters union)?

But you choose to ignore the facts and promote and defend state power regardless of it intended and unintended consequences.
The Soviets discovered very quickly how central planning fails to promote prosperity. So did the Pilgrims in 1620.
Therefore the only purpose of state central planning must be control, not prosperity. The US and EU are experiencing the decline as the state impose its power, ostensibly to 'save the earth'.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 30, 2013
The sad thing is the Environmentalists actually believe they can help the environment by forcing a decline in the economy via higher prices and more government regulation. The environment movement only exists because we are wealthy. If they bight the hand that feeds them they will cease to exist. The biggest threat to the environment we all face is economic decline.
djr
4 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2013
gregor - "The environment movement only exists because we are wealthy."

Right on gregor - there is no environmental movement in poor countries (sarcasm) - any way - Cantdrive already established that principle - sod the poor people - only our children are important. Sure love the antiscience movement...
djr
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2013
"The US and EU are experiencing the decline as the state impose its power, ostensibly to 'save the earth'."

Yeah - but lucky we have folks like Rygg - standing on the ramparts keeping watch - protecting us from the evil socialists - I will sleep better tonight - as Jack Nocholson said "You can't handle the truth".
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (14) May 01, 2013
So dir. You don't believe there will be a voter backlash when food and gas prices go up? I say feed and educate people first. Hungry people don't care about the environment and don't send money to ngos like Wwf and Greenpeace. Cheap abundant energy is a basic human right.
djr
3.8 / 5 (10) May 01, 2013
So dir. You don't believe there will be a voter backlash when food and gas prices go up?

I bet there will. Which is why I do not support ethanol - and I do support renewables (including nuclear). There is no doubt in my mind that we can have abundant, cheap energy, and also preserve the environment, and also provide a high quality of life for all 7 billion of us. I bet we could even stretch that to 50 billion if we tried hard. We need to get beyond the petty partisan bickering, and make intelligence a priority. Too bad there are so many luddites in our world.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (15) May 01, 2013
Pity the whole world is not you then. If you are the clever one and the rest of us are "Luddites" or "Tards" as our friend Vendi would say, what is your next step? Perhaps you could scare the daylights out of us idiots by making exaggerated "end of days" predictions to force us into lockstep? ... oh ? .... hang on there... someone else has tried that.... the loony far right! Which 'side' are you on?
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) May 01, 2013
gregor - "Pity the whole world is not you then. If you are the clever one and the rest of us are "Luddites"

Ha - there is more of us out there than you want to understand. The renewable energy sector is one of the most vibrant, and fastest growing sectors of our economy. Many countries across the world are now shooting for very high percentages of renewables (Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Germany, Scotland, England, Brazil etc. etc.) Tens of thousands of scientists are studying the climate, and helping us understand what an intelligent species would do in response to this potential catastrophe. Public sentiment and political will across the world are swinging in favor of an intelligent response. Atheism is on the rise, and religious affiliation on the decline. The natural thirst for progress will take care of it - you luddites are on the wrong side of history.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (16) May 01, 2013
there will be a voter backlash when food and gas prices go up

There should be when socialist govts keep inflating the currency by printing more money. Prices are rising because of inflation, too many paper dollars chasing too few real goods.
Does dj support the socialist (AGW) solution to cutting gas consumption by raising gas prices by increasing taxes. The AGW solution to coal and oil is to raise taxes and impose regulatory costs to kill the industry, with NO cost effective alternative to replace them.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (16) May 01, 2013
ens of thousands of scientists are studying the climate, and helping us understand what an intelligent species would do in response to this potential catastrophe


This is called central planning by committee, aka communism.
The much better alternative is for billions of people to may thousands of daily choices in their self- interest and let the entrepreneurs, not govt funded scientists, find alternatives.
This method has been proven effective.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (11) May 01, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo. So stop bleating about it.


So this is a feature of science and academia...not something to be ashamed of and try to work towards correcting?
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) May 01, 2013
Rygg: "Does dj support the socialist (AGW) solution to cutting gas consumption by raising gas prices by increasing taxes."

Nope - I support a strong emphasis on science and education, and encouraging individuals to inform themselves, and to work hard to develop solutions to problems such as food production, energy production etc. Science is providing solutions as we speak. Government is definitely not the solution. I would like to see a very minimalist government - with heavy cultural emphasis on science, education, individual responsibility. I have told Rygg this many many times - Rygg seems incapable of understanding basic written text. Scientists studying something is not called central planning - it is called science. I think that the funding of science is one role of government that I would support - business interests have shown repeatedly that they are willing to corrupt science (see tobacco, or pharmaceutical industry for examples).
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 01, 2013
"private firms will need to leave unused 60-80 percent of the coal, oil and natural gas they are developing in order to meet the target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius."
http://www.energy...999.html

business interests have shown repeatedly that they are willing to corrupt science

And govts are angels and wouldn't consider corrupting science?
Science is providing solutions as we speak.

And how will they implemented if not cost effective?
Ten thousand scientists can't be wrong so dj, how do you propose to implement their final solutions?
djr
4.4 / 5 (9) May 01, 2013
"This method has been proven effective." Yes - but there are also problems. Do you support government oversight of building codes? Or do you approve of a world in which factories packed to the hilt with low paid workers collapse - and kill hundreds of workers?
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2013
Ten thousand scientists can't be wrong so dj, how do you propose to implement their final solutions?

I would like to see a partnership between society, the science community, and it's government. Oh look - that is happening now. See - the government/industry partnerships funded research into fracking - now we have vast quantities of natural gas available to us - and energy companies are making huge profits, and paying taxes to the government. Do you support that process? What is your proposed solution to the many thousands of deaths that are occurring today due to the pollution in China and India, from the burning of coal? Do you see government as having a role in that situation?
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2013
Ten thousand scientists can't be wrong so dj, how do you propose to implement their final solutions?

I would like to see a partnership between society, the science community, and it's government. Oh look - that is happening now. See - the government/industry partnerships funded research into fracking - now we have vast quantities of natural gas available to us - and energy companies are making huge profits, and paying taxes to the government. Do you support that process? What is your proposed solution to the many thousands of deaths that are occurring today due to the pollution in China and India, from the burning of coal? Do you see government as having a role in that situation?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013
I would like to see a partnership between society, the science community,

The 'science community' is not a part of society?
t government oversight of building codes?

Only if you have honest building inspectors. How do you verify that? I would much rather trust codes imposed by a mortgage company and insurance companies that finance and insure the structures.
Automobile safety owes more to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety than any govt agency.,
energy companies are making huge profits, and paying taxes to the government.

That's a bad thing?
your proposed solution to the many thousands of deaths that are occurring today due to the pollution in China and India


I am not Indian or Chinese. It's their problem to solve and it won't be solved until they have govts concerned about protecting private property rights.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 01, 2013
government/industry partnerships

Like the govt/industry/union partnership to make citizens of those who are in the US illegally?
Where were public hearings for citizens to voice their opinions?
dj claims to not be socialist yet his proposals are all class based, not individual based.
ArtflDgr
2.3 / 5 (15) May 01, 2013
At one time there was a consensus among science that blacks were inferior
german scientists had enough consensus that the public didnt really stop them from throwing jews into ovens along with many others.

care to comment on the history of such consensus and many others?

ArtflDgr
2.3 / 5 (12) May 01, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.


Prat ... not every interpretation is predicated on conspiracy or reduction to religion. A religion is a belief in something passed down from ancestry. With no empirical proof by observation in real time - then religion is merely a prop for the psyche, a reflex to make the world easier to comprehend. This is a science site and religion plays no part. Look up science in a dictionary. The Galileo allusion is what should be obvious to a non-prejudiced mind. .... That science can be a threat to the bigoted and ignorant.
I must thank you for a live demonstartion of that.


ah. why not go to the history books and stop blaming the church for the bheavior of a few jesuit academics who wanted him crushed as they were teaching
ArtflDgr
2.1 / 5 (14) May 01, 2013
the battle was between who would define the world, the philosophers (like the left follows), or the empiricists... the philosphers, decided to cheat, as they do today, and crush the empiricists by running to the state power of the day, which was the church... and to day they run to the same power to get it to crush who they dont like.

the rest has been a battle until today, when the philosphers could tip over the empiricists...
and so, they got them to prove blacks inferior, and indians
to murder jews... and all manner of pedagogy where if the science said otherwise, it was hidden or forced by power.. so abortions and birth control increase breast cancer, but dont tell women, as that would do what to the philosphers ideas of how to force a future?

this is why they pounce on sience, do not fund it, and make a mokery of impiricism.
its the only way to use a trusted something, to control others. Niccolò Machiavelli was the one who coined separation of church and state as a means
ArtflDgr
2.3 / 5 (15) May 01, 2013
the left has been rewriting history to change their followers ideas of what to do, and have admitted to it from day one. shows how stupid the follwers are!!!!!!! when your leader says they intend something that hurts you and will do bad things for you, and you ignore it support it then wonder why you have all those nasty things from total administration...

the left has saught to use religion, and destroy it when they cant
use liberalism, by gutting it and changing it to its hegelian opposite (hegel a philospher as was marx, as was all of them who did not like that they could not define the world!!! so marx defined the world and the followers decided to crush science and blame religion)

sadly, we forget that science started with religion..
the search to understand the works of the creator to get closer to him was the idea
whether there is a creator or not, the idea allowed them to put money to research reality as a thing to be understood empirically
ArtflDgr
2.2 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013
it was the church that made the first universities, and colleges...and it was they that funded the first research into things which did not have an economic purpose...

without that, we would have no science today as we know it
we would still have craft knowlege which liberals looking back think of as science
but its basis was percieving a trend and working it, without explanation
which made it easy for the left to pretend it dont count if you dont understand why
but it does count... you dont have to know feotal alcohol syndrom to notice the blocked heads from alcohol... its just a way for philospophers who come up with ideas like bloodletting, sacrifice, and so on.

heck, they have normalized the idea of intervening in kids lives to mold them for the future
wasnt it dr mengele that normalized that? didnt he experiment on the public like the left in social experiments a la marx, and want to mold them for the future?

i guess thats what false consensus gets you..
runrig
4 / 5 (8) May 01, 2013
error
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) May 01, 2013
Rygg: "Automobile safety owes more to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety than any govt agency."

How did you come up with that gem rygg? You are saying that NHTSA has not been a majory player in developing safety codes. How do you measure who has had the most impact?

"dj claims to not be socialist yet his proposals are all class based, not individual based."

What a stupid comment - how is suggesting that private company/government partnerships may be a good model classist? What an idiot.

I am not Indian or Chinese. It's their problem to solve and it won't be solved until they have govts concerned about protecting private property rights.

What a total non answer - I am asking if you feel that government should have a role in establishing codes such as work health and safety codes. As usual - you are incapable of addressing an issue - just throw out some more abstract theory.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 01, 2013
You are saying that NHTSA has not been a majory player in developing safety codes. How do you measure who has had the most impact?

IIHS has more stringent tests than the govt and auto companies work hard to pass those IIHS tests.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 01, 2013
how is suggesting that private company/government partnerships may be a good model classist?

That's how you think according to your posts: society vs govt vs science vs industry vs...collectives.
I am asking if you feel that government should have a role in establishing codes such as work health and safety codes.


No. I said govt has a roll in protecting private property. The proper role of any govt in the Bangladesh case is to prosecute the owners of the building for murder and apply strict penalties, and facilitate lawsuits by the victims for reparations from the owners and their insurance companies.

What is dj's solution to corrupt govt building inspectors? Codes don't matter if inspectors can be bribed. Laws don't matter if they are not enforced.

The way I described above, there are many incentives for safe buildings.

And of course now, with all the publicity, fewer customers will buy products from Bangladesh.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013
At one time there was a consensus among science that blacks were inferior
german scientists had enough consensus that the public didnt really stop them from throwing jews into ovens along with many others.

care to comment on the history of such consensus and many others?


'Liberals' still maintain that consensus encouraging the poor to murder their babies. Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (11) May 01, 2013
That, AO, is pure unadulterated BS.

Are you a congenital liar or one of convenience of the moment?

http://australian...e-cause/
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 01, 2013
private company/government partnerships

The first of such 'partnership's which began the 'progressive' era was the FDA. The five largest meat packers colluded to support the creation of the FDA to limit their competition.
Other such 'partnerships' were the Federal Reserve and then the alphabet soup of the Regulatory State promoting crony capitalism.
There are costs for such collusion. I bet GE Capital was pressured by Obama to stop loaning money to any gun business.
Enron colluded to promote the Kyoto Treaty and Microsoft learned its lesson when Clinton sued them.
Then there is the NM Spaceport seeking special laws from the state so no one can hold it liable.
And then there is the classic Army control of the US rivers and their failure in New Orleans.
And of course there would not have been a transcontinental railroad if the govt didn't give the railroad companies one square mile of land for each mile of rail.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 01, 2013
That, AO, is pure unadulterated BS.

Are you a congenital liar or one of convenience of the moment?

http://australian...e-cause/

Trying to revoke the PhD of those who don't agree with you is a common practice of science, right?
http://www.forbes...esearch/
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) May 01, 2013
So R2, Ummm how man conspiracies do you believe in? You seem to blame liberals for all of them, but when I read them, I see it was liberals working to fix problems created by un-regulated companies that abused their power. Kind of what exist today with the 1% of the 1% who own nearly all of the wealth of this once great nation. It's those people that really have divided us into the us vs them. When the political influence of a few can control and manipulate the politics of a nation (or as in Koch and his tea partiers, the science of the nation).

R2, it's a real shame your such an extremist that everything you see that you disagree with is some socialist plot. Wingnut is only proper.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013
I see it was liberals working to fix problems created by un-regulated companies that abused their power.


What unregulated companies that abuse their power?
All companies are regulated by their competition and by their customers.
I can SHOW how 'liberals' 'fix' problems by following the bidding of a supporter to squash a competitor.
One of your fellow 'liberals' so stated with MS:
"Look, buddy, there is an American way of doing things, and that American way includes hiring lobbyists, paying lawyers vast sums by the hour, throwing lavish parties for politicians, aides, journalists, and so on. So get with the program. So that's what Microsoft did. It moved its government affairs office out of distant Chevy Chase, Md., and into the downtown K Street corridor. It bulked up on lawyers and hired the best-connected lobbyists. "
http://articles.l...20110405
This is the 'progressive' way.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013
When the political influence of a few

Like Soros, or Buffet, or major banks, or unions, or...?

It's those people that really have divided us into the us vs them


'Those people', like Obama:
Obama:
"We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for a ride, but they gotta sit in back."
http://answers.ya...8AAqhUnU

For the 'liberal'/socialist/AGWite, it's either join or die.

Notice now how shrill the 'liberals' will get as their AGW policies fail, when their gun control attempts failed, as their economy fails....
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013
Fred, Charles and David Koch graduated from MIT. I'm sure they learned something about science.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2013
Rygg. "That's how you think according to your posts: society vs govt vs science vs industry vs...collectives"

I have no idea how you can read classism into a statement that suggests that a business/gvt/community partnership may be a good model - but think what you want.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) May 01, 2013
Fred, Charles and David Koch graduated from MIT. I'm sure they learned something about science.

Well, I would not doubt that, but greed can be a big motivator for destroying science if it doesn't fit your needs. In the case of the tea partiers, there motivation is barn yard cow lick stupidity on how science works or how government works or how government debt creates wealth, and helps the GDP. I wonder if your in that group. You've claimed in the past to be a Libertarian. I've admired the Independence attributes that Libertarians believe in, but I also find they are lacking in realistic approaches to the problems found in urban populations.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) May 01, 2013
How can a govt create wealth by first destroying wealth?
realistic approaches to the problems found in urban populations.

The socialists are doing a great job for urban populations in Detroit, Chicago, NY, CA,....
AGWites and PC 'liberals' are doing great job of destroying science.

I have no idea how you can read classism into a statement that suggests that a business/gvt/community partnership may be a good model


Because you don't see individual people. You see classes of people: govt, business, society.

'Govt' and 'business' should be independent subsets of 'society'.
Govt is created by people in a society to protect each individuals right to life, liberty and property.
'Business' are people in a society that create wealth by producing products and services other people in the society want and need.
But the 'progressive' sees separate entities and more likely think society and business are subsets of the govt.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 01, 2013

" "It's only "good science" if the message is politically correct." This perfectly captures the reaction to both evolutionary psychology and intelligence research from scientists and civilians alike. Any study that demonstrates that there are innate sex or race differences is a priori "bad science." Any study that demonstrates that there are no innate sex or race differences is a priori "good science." "
http://www.psycho...ly-corre
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013

""A largely jobless recovery coupled with a Quantitative-Easing-fueled stock market rally seems to earn more smiles from the upscale among us, fewer from the working class," said the pollsters."
http://washington.../2528621
Hottie, how does inflating the dollar, putting more people on welfare increase GDP?
And why do so many wealthy support Obama?
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) May 01, 2013
R2, "How can a govt create wealth by first destroying wealth?" First, how is does govt destroy wealth? Other than wars, or deflation (read austerity), there is not much else. Everything else is designed to create a playing field were wealth is created. That is the purpose of govt. Its to provide a playing field where the population can have benefits from working hard, being creative and building home and family.

You make some of the broadest false claims I know of R2. "But the 'progressive' sees separate entities and more likely think society and business are subsets of the govt." How do you figure that? According to the US constitution, and the construction of our democratic and representative form of government, we rule ourselves. Unfortunately we've given power to corporations and treat corporations as special people. That is where the problems of modern politics has it's roots. Both your issues and mine.


deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) May 01, 2013
ens of thousands of scientists are studying the climate, and helping us understand what an intelligent species would do in response to this potential catastrophe


This is called central planning by committee, aka communism.

False equivalency. And, you already knew that, but decided to see if you could get away with it without being called out.

The much better alternative is for billions of people to may thousands of daily choices in their self- interest and let the entrepreneurs, not govt funded scientists, find alternatives.
This method has been proven effective.

Pure unadulterated BS.

The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (11) May 01, 2013
And why do so many wealthy support Obama?
I don't know perhaps you can enlighten me. Could it be that they like him? Could it be that he make sound decisions based on reason. Could it be that you can sit down and have a beer with him.

Hottie, how does inflating the dollar, putting more people on welfare increase GDP?
This is one for an ECON class, but you want to have a small background inflation in pricing, as it drives down the costs of fixed long term debt. That allow people to borrow more, build more and develop the economy further. That is something the austerity clowns seem to not understand. Of course you don't want extremes, but a small background inflation is good.

Let me plug the Khan Academy https://www.khana...-finance for some excellent basic discussion on economics and monetary fundamentals. Good stuff.

deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) May 01, 2013
That, AO, is pure unadulterated BS.

Are you a congenital liar or one of convenience of the moment?

http://australian...e-cause/

Pure unadulterated BS.

Stick to scientific facts or shut up.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) May 01, 2013
Fred, Charles and David Koch graduated from MIT. I'm sure they learned something about science.

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Being an MIT alumnus is no guarantor of good behavior.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) May 01, 2013
rygg "Because you don't see individual people. You see classes of people: govt, business, society."

That is about as stupid a response as I have seen even you post. I gave an example of a government/corporate partnership - which of course you can support - or argue against - but to state that this means I do not see individual people is just plain stupid. Nuf said.
Howhot
4 / 5 (12) May 01, 2013
Deep, I visited that website and came to the conclusion that it's a complete waste of electrons even viewing it. The guy that runs it has nothing but air between his ears and just like every other dim-bulb denier out there, he has a conspiracy that somehow it's all mind control governmental black ops making up global warming to control the masses through fear.

Lol. What a joke. George W, managed to do that with the Iraq war, but I don't think you can make a good global conspiratorial model work if everything was OK, fine, and hunky-dory with the real world environment.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) May 01, 2013
Deep, I visited that website and came to the conclusion that it's a complete waste of electrons even viewing it. The guy that runs it has nothing but air between his ears and just like every other dim-bulb denier out there, he has a conspiracy that somehow it's all mind control governmental black ops making up global warming to control the masses through fear.

No doubt brought to us by the same group that's behind "chemtrails" and having the Fed buy up as much ammunition as possible so that citizens won't be able to defend themselves against the men in the black helicopters.

What planet are these conspiracy nuts from?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 02, 2013
Fred, Charles and David Koch graduated from MIT. I'm sure they learned something about science.

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Being an MIT alumnus is no guarantor of good behavior.

The implication was the Koch's did not understand science.
And I agree, a Harvard law degree does not guarantee honest behavior.
The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.

Another class warrior. The masses are too stupid to know what's good for them so people like Sandy are needed to control them.
Value is in the eye of the beholder and may or may not be rational. Billions of such value judgements made everyday weed out theft and fraud.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 02, 2013
First, how is does govt destroy wealth?

Taxes. Regulations.
where the population can have benefits from working hard, being creative and building home and family.


So why don't the 'progressive' govts do this?
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) May 02, 2013
Rygg: "This is called central planning by committee, aka communism."

Deepsand "False equivalency. And, you already knew that, but decided to see if you could get away with it without being called out."

Deepsand - you are assuming a level of intelligence and understanding that does not seem to exist. Rygg thinks that referencing a government/private partnership determines that one is a classist. Rygg suggests that the solution to unscrupulous business owners who build cheap buildings, and the buildings collapse on the slave labor occupants in said buildings - is to empower the dead workers to sue the owners. Yep - that will solve the problem. Time to quit.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) May 02, 2013
Deep, I visited that website and came to the conclusion that it's a complete waste of electrons even viewing it. The guy that runs it has nothing but air between his ears and just like every other dim-bulb denier out there, he has a conspiracy that somehow it's all mind control governmental black ops making up global warming to control the masses through fear.
-- howhot
Let us not forget though that there are dark forces that really support the anti-AGW positions that are tied in political circles to the rightwing of the US. Anti seems like the kind of guy (based his posts) that would take the influence money of the dark depraved ones.
What do you think, put him in FEMA region 9?
-- howhot
With these AGW Alarmist Zealots, the line between paranoia and stupidity is very fine. I blame the AGW kool-aid, but then again most of them are obviously quite stupid.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (12) May 02, 2013
The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.


Then who is an based on what criteria? Further what makes those criteria more valid than any other and why? In short give us your basis for purely objective morality and philosophy...

You'd be the first to do so...
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (13) May 02, 2013
The more people believe scientists agree about climate change, the more willing they are to support government action, even when their party affiliation is taken into account.


Well I'm the exception to that. I believe climate change is real and I have to snicker at anyone who thinks carbon taxes or any other impotent governmental action is going to work any better than any other government regulation ever does. People ALWAYS find a way around such regulations, they simply don't work.

The real solution is technological, best be about that if your actually serious about curbing carbon emissions and not ACTUALLY pushing for more government control of the energy industry and hiding behind climate change to do so....
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 02, 2013
Rygg suggests that the solution to unscrupulous business owners who build cheap buildings, and the buildings collapse on the slave labor occupants in said buildings - is to empower the dead workers to sue the owners. Yep - that will solve the problem. Time to quit.


The Bangladeshi govt FAILED so dj expects the Bangladeshi govt to fix its failures? What is their motivation to fix their corrupt system?
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
The Bangladeshi Government didn't build the building that collapsed. Neither did it own it, lease it, or occupy it.

"The Bangladeshi govt FAILED" - RyggTard

Those 400 lives were lost due to pure Capitalism.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
Do you pay taxes, MysticalTard?

Do you obey traffic laws?

"People ALWAYS find a way around such regulations, they simply don't work." - MysticalTard

Do you murder your neighbours?

Do you rape their children?

To you take off your shoes at the airport? (bahahahahahah)

Talk is cheap... Loser.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
"In short give us your basis for purely objective morality and philosophy." - MysticalTard

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." would be that basis.

Now if you wish to shit in my drinking water feel free to visit your local sewer and start to chow down.

If you intend to cause the deaths of millions to maintain your corrupt and wasteful lifestyle, then I assume that you have permitted me to take your life for the purpose of my pleasure.

I presume you will agree.

What is your address by the way?

VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
"the line between paranoia and stupidity is very fine." - AntiGorical

A hilarious statement coming from a retard such as yourself who thinks that economic growth can continue to be exponential.

Where were you so poorly educated?
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
"Time to quit." - dir

Unfortunately you can't get off the TeaPublican carnival ride if you are an American.

44% of Republicans feel they that they will have to take part in an armed revolution in the next few years.

http://cnsnews.co...ecessary
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
"What planet are these conspiracy nuts from?" - Deepsand

Planet Conservadopia, and it's forest moon of Libertoon.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
The positive effects of inflating the dollar by a few percent per year are basic macroeconomics, and if the number of dollars does not increase with the rate of population increase, the economy is slowly starved of capital.

Poor RyggTard. His knowledge of economics is very close to Zero.

"Hottie, how does inflating the dollar, putting more people on welfare increase GDP?" - RyggTard

The unemployed are of course largely created by Capitalists.

This is particularly true in the U.S. where Conservatives have conspired with Capitalists to move American Jobs to low wage nations.

Government has a choice of either allowing tens of millions of Americans to be thrown out on the street and starve or supply them with social welfare payments to keep them housed and fed.

RyggTard and his Libertarian/Randite brethren, demand that the unemployed be thrown into the gutter for the crime of being the victim of failed Libertarian/Randite economic policies that took away their jobs.

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) May 02, 2013
Another Stupid question from the Randite. Is it even possible to show more stupidity?

"How can a govt create wealth by first destroying wealth?" - RyggTard

The same way a business can create wealth by borrowing money.

Poor RyggTard. Like all Libertarians, his knowledge of economics is essentially ZERO.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) May 02, 2013
Proving that graduating from MIT does not prohibit corruption, greed, deviance, or ideological ignorance.

"Fred, Charles and David Koch graduated from MIT" - RyggTard

Why do you suggest that it does?
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) May 02, 2013
Fred, Charles and David Koch graduated from MIT. I'm sure they learned something about science.

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

Being an MIT alumnus is no guarantor of good behavior.

The implication was the Koch's did not understand science.

The Koch bros. degrees are in general, mechanical and chemical engineering.

That does not make them knowledgeable in Physics, which is the body of Science that underlies climate.

The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.

Another class warrior.

A deliberate misrepresentation.

My statement is patently true on its face. Deny it and once again demonstrate the degree of your duplicity.

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 02, 2013
Deep, I visited that website and came to the conclusion that it's a complete waste of electrons even viewing it. The guy that runs it has nothing but air between his ears and just like every other dim-bulb denier out there, he has a conspiracy that somehow it's all mind control governmental black ops making up global warming to control the masses through fear.
-- howhot
Let us not forget though that there are dark forces that really support the anti-AGW positions that are tied in political circles to the rightwing of the US. Anti seems like the kind of guy (based his posts) that would take the influence money of the dark depraved ones.
What do you think, put him in FEMA region 9?
-- howhot
With these AGW Alarmist Zealots, the line between paranoia and stupidity is very fine. I blame the AGW kool-aid, but then again most of them are obviously quite stupid.

TROLL.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) May 02, 2013
The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.


Then who is an based on what criteria?

If you need to ask the question then you are clearly not qualified for making decisions that affect anyone other than yourself.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2013
The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.


Then who is an based on what criteria?

If you need to ask the question then you are clearly not qualified for making decisions that affect anyone other than yourself.

You can't or won't answer?
"It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against high-pressure advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only."
http://mises.org/quotes.aspx
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2013
"The basis of modern economics is the cognition that it is precisely the disparity in the value attached to the objects exchanged that results in their being exchanged. People buy and sell only because they appraise the things given up less than those received. Thus the notion of a measurement of value is vain. An act of exchange is neither preceded nor accompanied by any process which could be called a measuring of value. An individual may attach the same value to two things; but then no exchange can result. But if there is a diversity in valuation, all that can be asserted with regard to it is that one a is valued higher, that it is preferred to one b. Values and valuations are intensive quantities and not extensive quantities. They are not susceptible to mental grasp by the application of cardinal numbers. "
http://www.econli...A11.html
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2013
Rygg; "The Bangladeshi govt FAILED so dj expects the Bangladeshi govt to fix its failures? What is their motivation to fix their corrupt system?"

The govt certainly did fail - as did the corrupt building owners. djr would hope that as societies become more open, and education levels increase, and religious persuasions decrease - that levels of corruption will also decrease. It surely must be recognized that many societies (such as Europe, and N.America) seem to do a better job of protecting citizens from such blatant evils - perhaps our unions has something to do with this, perhaps a better education system, perhaps a more open society with a vibrant press - although of course still a long way to go. telling the dead victims to depend on the court system for redress seems like a pretty stupid idea to me - I see govt. as having a legitimate role here.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 02, 2013
"Thus the owners of the material factors of production and the entrepreneurs are virtually mandataries or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by an election daily repeated. "
"The position which entrepreneurs and capitalists occupy in the market economy is of a different character. A "chocolate king" has no power over the consumers, his patrons. He provides them with chocolate of the best possible quality and at the cheapest price. He does not rule the consumers, he serves them. The consumers are not tied to him. They are free to stop patronizing his shops. He loses his "kingdom" if the consumers prefer to spend their pennies elsewhere."http://www.econli...page-bar
It's no surprise socialists like sandy despise the consumer.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2013
I see govt. as having a legitimate role here.

And they FAILED.
How do YOU propose to fix it?
How do you propose to instil honesty and virtue into their govt. A govt historically one of empire.

"Corruption and marginal enforcement of property rights have driven people and enterprises out of the formal sector."
"Despite some progress in streamlining business regulations, entrepreneurial activity is hampered by an uncertain regulatory environment and the absence of effective long-term institutional support for private-sector development. The government's inability to provide basic public goods further limits economic opportunities for business development and job growth."
"Corruption remains a serious problem."
http://www.herita...ngladesh

BTW, one role of the govt IS to facilitate lawsuits and reparations.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 02, 2013
The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.


Then who is an based on what criteria?

If you need to ask the question then you are clearly not qualified for making decisions that affect anyone other than yourself.

You can't or won't answer?

The answer is patently obvious to anyone with a wee bit of common sense.

"It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against high-pressure advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only."
http://mises.org/quotes.aspx

IMMATERIAL.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) May 02, 2013
"And they FAILED." Correct - as did the building owner. Funny how
rygg is only able to see one side of things. Sorry Rygg - I don't have a magic wand - or the power to change the world over night. Read my last post and try to understand what I was saying to see what my hope is as we move forward. The other countries i mentioned are doing a better job - for the reasons I outlined. Sure beats telling the dead people to sue the building owner....... cont.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 02, 2013
It surely must be recognized that many societies (such as Europe, and N.America) seem to do a better job of protecting citizens from such blatant evils - perhaps our unions has something to do with this,


Unions? Really?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2013
"And they FAILED." Correct - as did the building owner. Funny how
rygg is only able to see one side of things. Sorry Rygg - I don't have a magic wand - or the power to change the world over night. Read my last post and try to understand what I was saying to see what my hope is as we move forward. The other countries i mentioned are doing a better job - for the reasons I outlined. Sure beats telling the dead people to sue the building owner....... cont.

But you are all VERY quick to blame those evil businesses who are having clothing made there that people want to buy.
The ONLY solution is for more businesses to set up shop there, hire more people, create more wealth so they can afford to build better. But if the govt remains corrupt/socialist, there will be no progress.
And the reason the rich countries are doing better is they have earned wealth and suffered the same growing pains.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 02, 2013
The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.


Then who is an based on what criteria?

If you need to ask the question then you are clearly not qualified for making decisions that affect anyone other than yourself.

You can't or won't answer?

The answer is patently obvious to anyone with a wee bit of common sense.

"It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against high-pressure advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only."
http://mises.org/quotes.aspx

IMMATERIAL.

Right. You have NO answer. NO basis. NO rationale for your belief.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 02, 2013
"Sohel Rana is a local politician connected to the ruling Awami League and, like other political party cadres, was used to exert intimidating influence on the employees and local people. This was the main reason why so many workers entered the ill-fated building even after knowing its condition.

Party hooliganism is not uncommon in Bangladesh, but this has multiplied in worrying proportions during the tenure of the current government. Some factory owners who are political cadres of the ruling party are known to use their employees as political pawns. For some it is the way of moving into the world of influence and affluence within the span of the government. Most of these 'hooligan' politicians forget their ordinary roots and indulge in vulgar display of wealth and power."
http://www.the-pl...tragedy/
Sound like Obama's style of govt and crony 'capitalism'.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 02, 2013
cont. Recently - the inspectors of New York cabs were running a big graft scheme. Leave $100 on the visor - and your cab past inspection (govt. inspectors). The scheme was exposed by the media - video was made of the inspectors taking the bribes - people were fired. So I guess there are some incentives we can build in to try to expose corruptions. I think an educated population - free of religious shackles would be a good start.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 02, 2013
The consumer is neither sufficiently educated and rational for making all necessary informed decisions nor capable of controlling what choices entrepreneurs offer.


Then who is an based on what criteria?

If you need to ask the question then you are clearly not qualified for making decisions that affect anyone other than yourself.

You can't or won't answer?

The answer is patently obvious to anyone with a wee bit of common sense.

"It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against high-pressure advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only."
http://mises.org/quotes.aspx

IMMATERIAL.

Right. You have NO answer. NO basis. NO rationale for your belief.

NON-SUBSTANTIVE.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 02, 2013
Sound like Obama's style of govt and crony 'capitalism'

Right - buildings are collapsing every day here in the U.S. Let's blame the government - even though we deny that the govt. has any role to play in monitoring health and safety conditions. geez
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (12) May 02, 2013
The scheme was exposed by the media - video was made of the inspectors taking the bribes - people were fired. So I guess there are some incentives we can build in to try to expose corruptions.


NOT exposed by the govt. 60 Minutes and 20/20 used to expose such corruption. Now these media are complicit in such corruption, like Pigford: "Turns out conservative crusader Andrew Breitbart was correct when he exposed a multibillion-dollar redistribution scheme to African-American farmers based on largely dubious claims of discrimination."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...SBhxxiVk
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
buildings are collapsing every day

Dikes built by the US govt fail. Especially in New Orleans.

deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) May 02, 2013
I see it was liberals working to fix problems created by un-regulated companies that abused their power.


What unregulated companies that abuse their power?
All companies are regulated by their competition and by their customers.

Do you really think that we are so stupid as to buy into that fairy tale? :rolleyes:
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) May 02, 2013
"The basis of modern economics is the cognition that it is precisely the disparity in the value attached to the objects exchanged that results in their being exchanged. People buy and sell only because they appraise the things given up less than those received.l

Anyone who really believes this nonsense lives in a very sheltered and privileged world.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) May 02, 2013
Thus the owners of the material factors of production and the entrepreneurs are virtually mandataries or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by an election daily repeated.

Yet another lie of monstrous proportion.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 02, 2013
The US govt keeps saying the consumer drives the economy. That's was Mises said, too.
When the economy was collapsing the govt tried many ways for the taxpayers to keep more of their money, cut social security taxes, tax rebates, ....
Why would they do that if the consuming taxpayer wasn't the real driver of the economy?

When Sandy trades his money for a product or service he values both equally? If so, why do you trade? Why not keep your money if it has the same value to you?
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 02, 2013
"NOT exposed by the govt. 60 Minutes and 20/20 used to expose such corruption"

Did I not say 'media' Did you not therefore just agree with me? Help Help - you are talking and you can't shut up. And by the way - yes - the unions have done a great deal over the years to protect the rights of workers. Do some reading on the British coal mines in the 1800's....
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 02, 2013
"NOT exposed by the govt. 60 Minutes and 20/20 used to expose such corruption"

Did I not say 'media' Did you not therefore just agree with me? Help Help - you are talking and you can't shut up. And by the way - yes - the unions have done a great deal over the years to protect the rights of workers. Do some reading on the British coal mines in the 1800's....

Right, you said the MEDIA uncovered the govt corruption. So why didn't the govt?
The media and 'word of mouth' are two ways consumers can learn and find out from other consumers who produces quality products and services and is much more responsive than the govt. Yet dj insists govt must step in and create some regulation.

Unions did a great job protecting the rights of Detroit's workers.
Unions decimated manufacturing jobs let's hope govt unions do the same for govt jobs.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 02, 2013
"This method has been proven effective." Yes - but there are also problems. Do you support government oversight of building codes? Or do you approve of a world in which factories packed to the hilt with low paid workers collapse - and kill hundreds of workers?

Do you support govt regulations that are not enforced and are used to enrich agents for the govt.?
Laws and regulations that are actively ignored and used to enrich govt agents are worse than no laws and regulations.
The current regime won't enforce immigration laws and actively prevent state govts from enforcing immigration laws to protect their citizens. Why?
"More laws, less justice." Cicero
VendicarE
4 / 5 (9) May 02, 2013
A laughable question coming from a Retard who never answers questions put to you.

"You can't or won't answer?" - RyggTard

Yours was answered.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) May 02, 2013
Rygg, you're long on straw men and short on substance.

You have but two choices: anarchy and hierarchy. Which do you choose?

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) May 02, 2013
It doesn't occur to dimwits like RyggTard that regulations that are not enforced can not be used to enrich anyone.

"Do you support govt regulations that are not enforced and are used to enrich agents for the govt.?" - RyggTard

Why do you support and promote wage Slavery RyggTard?
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
"The current regime won't enforce immigration laws and actively prevent state govts from enforcing immigration laws to protect their citizens. Why?" - RyggTard

RyggTard conveniently ignores the face that the Supreme Court has upheld the position that it is unconstitutional for states to take action regarding national border security.

Isn't it odd how TeaPublicans like RyggTard are perpetually whining about the unconstitutional nature of things that have been deemed by the supreme court to be constitutional, and when it comes to issues like Mexican Immigration ignore the fact that their own demands are unconstitutional?

Like every other Fascist who came before him.... RyggTard attacks the immigrants for the failings of his own political ideology.

From the Libertarian Party Platform...

Cont...
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
Cont...

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

...

We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

Poor RyggTard.. His ignorance extends even to his own Libretarian/Randite Liedeology...

There is stupid, and then there is TeaPublican stupid.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) May 03, 2013
"Right, you said the MEDIA uncovered the govt corruption. So why didn't the govt?"

Cuz they were corrupt stupid...

Do you support govt regulations that are not enforced and are used to enrich agents for the govt.?

Absolutely not - do you? Why do you always answer a question with a question? Maybe cuz you can't think for yourself.

The current regime won't enforce immigration laws and actively prevent state govts from enforcing immigration laws to protect their citizens. Why?

I don't know - you will have to ask them wont you?..
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013

"Unions did a great job protecting the rights of Detroit's workers." - RyggTard

You are right. They did. But then Conservatives came to power and told American Businesses to send American Jobs overseas, thereby causing mass unemployment in America.

The off-shoring policies of the Republicans came from direct from Libertarian think tanks during the Greed is the ultimate good era of the 80's and 90's.

Some dare call this Libertarian economic policy, "treason".

Why don't you RyggTard?
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
It is also what all Keynesian economists say.

Of course, they said it first. Mises just parrots them on this point.

"The US govt keeps saying the consumer drives the economy. That's was Mises said, " - RyggTard

Odd isn't it how every government policy that has come from Libertarian Economists has turned out to be a complete disaster for America.

The current economic downturn in America was of course the direct result of the Libertarian/Randite economic policies of Milton Freedman, who admitted to this very fact in front of congress.

Poor RyggTard. He is so ideologically programmed that he can't even accept the acceptance of guilty by the principle disciple of his own Liedeology.

Filth.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
You have to understand RyggTard's thougth processes.

One aspect of his Randite ideology holds that government regulation always produces the opposite effect it was intended to mitigate.

So if there are regulations that prevent buildings from falling down, and one falls down then it is the Government's fault.

His solution is to vanquish building codes so that the lack of government regulation will cause businesses to build better buildings that won't fall down.

"buildings are collapsing every day here in the U.S. Let's blame the government" - dir

It is complete idiocy of course. But Idiocy is what Randism and Libertarianism is all about, as you are rapidly learning.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) May 03, 2013
"Unions? Really?" - RyggTard

Yup. Really...

THE TRIANGLE SHIRTWAIST FACTORY FIRE

http://www.osha.g...ire.html
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) May 03, 2013
It is clear that RyggTard, like all of his Libertarian/Randite brothers put "wanting to buy" above the lives of the 400 workers who died when the building collapsed.

"But you are all VERY quick to blame those evil businesses who are having clothing made there that people want to buy." - RyggTard

Libertarian/Randite Filth.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
You have offered no evidece let alone proof that they can't build better.

"The ONLY solution is for more businesses to set up shop there, hire more people, create more wealth so they can afford to build better" - RyggTard

We do have evidence that your claim of not being able to build better is a lie.

And that comes from the fact that not all of the buildings in Bangladesh are falling down.

This one did, and did because Capitalists decided to maximize profits by putting the lives of it's workers at risk.

The Company owner didn't lose his life. Neither has the building contractor. But 400 of their wage slaves did.

But what is the life of a slave compared to that of the slave master?
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
"And they FAILED." - RyggTard

Police fail to prevent murders every day.

According to RyggTard's Libertarian "logic" the government is therefore responsible for every murder and all laws prohibiting murder should be repealed.

It is pure idiocy of course. But that is what Libertarianism and Randism is. Pure idiocy.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
"How do YOU propose to fix it?" - RyggTard

Execute the CEO of the corporation who ran the factory that collapsed, as well as the CEO of the business that built it.

Send a message to Businessmen that such crimes will not be tolerated.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) May 03, 2013
Now that:
AGW fabrications, which the Cult call science, have all been thoroughly debunked.
AGW Alarmism has failed. Remember the Polar Bears? Well, you don't have to, they are doing fine. You can still go and see them in the wild.
AGW intimidation of the 3% of TRUE climate scientists has failed.
The Convenient Lie has failed. It, however, did make the Cult's Vicar, Gore, a multimillionaire.
So with the globe cooling and the AGW Cult out of lies, they have now come full circle. This time, however, it's "scientists agree" not just 97%.
AGW Lies, the old is new again, but now with 3% more.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) May 03, 2013
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes...-crisis/
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2013
Abstract of the article that anti-goracle references that relies on a small survey of petroleum engineers.

Abstract

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals' discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise,
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2013
Cont...

we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses,

we contribute to the understanding of 'defensive institutional work' by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

No science in that article. It is pure intellectual faggotry.

And even here the Denialists are misrepresenting the data in the article.

The denialists claim that this report shows that only 35 percent of scientists agree with the fact that the global warming is occurring.

In fact, the article only uses a tiny subset of scientists - petroleum geologists and chemists - and even here, the Denialists misrepresent the article by excluding subsets of scientists who agree that anthropogenic CONT
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2013
cont...

anthropogenic warming is occurring but who fall into different categories

Categories such as...

Regulation Activists
Fatalists
Economic Responsibility
Nature is Overwhelming
Comply with Kyoto.

Only the percentage from the Comply with Kyoto group is reported by the Denialists, and the petroleum scientists in the other groups who accept the science of anthropogenic warming in the other groups are not counted.

It is pure dishonesty of course. But that is what Conservatives and Denialists are all about.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
Your convenient lies have never succeeded, Tard Boy.

"The Convenient Lie has failed. " - Antigorical

Your dishonesty is transparent.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) May 03, 2013
Your convenient lies have never succeeded, Tard Boy.

"The Convenient Lie has failed. " - Antigorical

Your dishonesty is transparent.

Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
http://www.forbes...-debate/
The United Nations is doubling down on ignorance and bias for its upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.forbes...norance/
Gore's obscene electricity usage
http://www.beacon...t-truth/
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) May 03, 2013
Only the percentage from the Comply with Kyoto group is reported by the Denialists, and the petroleum scientists in the other groups who accept the science of anthropogenic warming in the other groups are not counted.

It is pure dishonesty of course. But that is what Conservatives and Denialists are all about.


Conspiracy!

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) May 03, 2013

Conspiracy!



No, dumdum, what you quoted is called a deliberate misrepresentation. A conspiracy is when someone (say againstseeing or your own self) suggests that everyone involved in a study that is peer reviewed and reported in a scientific journal is paid to lie, and are part of a global group ("they") that are trying to steal your money, or liberties, or first born child or something.

Of course, you don't understand that because you are the guy who claims he didn't claim a conspiracy because he didn't use the word "conspiracy" while describing the conspiracy he sees all about him.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) May 03, 2013
It's only a conspiracy when it's convenient for you, delusional rubes!
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) May 03, 2013
And there's againstseeing, quoting from the Heartland Institute's own favourite denier, James Taylor. The claim is, of course, a deception, or more likely total incompetence, on the part of Heartland's favorite "environment" denier. He links to a paper in the journal Organization studies and makes a false and easily refuted misrepresentation that a mere 36% of scientists hold the consensus view that AGW is occurring. He uses cherry-picked data from a survey of largely industry engineers and geoscientists from Alberta tar sands based companies.

My my, how desperate the denier camp has become! Everyone involved in the subject is aware of Heartland's bias and Koch brothers funding. Laughable!!!!
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) May 03, 2013
It's only a conspiracy when it's convenient for you, delusional rubes!


No, dumdum, its not a conspiracy at all! You just THINK it's a conspiracy because you are an apparent paranoid and delusional individual who believes almost anything put onto a website, as long as it has pretty graphics and good writing, and "appears" to go against "the mainstream". You never learned to use the simple logic and critical thinking skills that allow you to avoid being duped by pseudo-scientific nonsense.

It's kind of sad, actually, such a waste.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 03, 2013
"Right, you said the MEDIA uncovered the govt corruption. So why didn't the govt?"

Cuz they were corrupt stupid...

Do you support govt regulations that are not enforced and are used to enrich agents for the govt.?

Absolutely not - do you? Why do you always answer a question with a question? Maybe cuz you can't think for yourself.

The current regime won't enforce immigration laws and actively prevent state govts from enforcing immigration laws to protect their citizens. Why?

I don't know - you will have to ask them wont you?..


And MORE govt regulations will fix it, according to dj.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 03, 2013
Fact. And a fact admitted in the article body that was misrepresented to by the Deniallist.

"Conspiracy!" - CantdriveTooStupid
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) May 03, 2013
That would depend on the regulation. Some regulaions fail because they are designed by Traitors to sere the purpose of failing.

"And MORE govt regulations will fix it, according to dj." - RyggTard

This is in part why Laws crafted by Ramdotee amdLibertarian think tanks have been such a spectacular failure for America.

djr
4.6 / 5 (10) May 03, 2013
And MORE govt regulations will fix it, according to dj.

your comment is very disjoint - you do not specify what problem you are talking about - you have a serious communication problem.

However - to respond to your statement - yes I do believe the gvt has a role to play in protecting the health and safety of the citizens. I understand well the issue of corruption - which applies equally to gvt. entities, and private entities. I don't believe there is a simple solution to corruption. As previously stated - and ignored by Rygg once again - my belief is that as we move forward to a more enlightened society (bereft of religion, and tribalism) with a good education system - we will one day leave behind corruption, war, violence etc. Until that time (definitely not in my life time) - I support a role for government in the health and safety of citizens.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 03, 2013
es I do believe the gvt has a role to play

So what role did govt play in the Bangladesh building collapse, besides not enforcing laws?
more enlightened society (bereft of religion

What made western society enlightened was religious based virtue.
Without virtue of citizens and this elected to govt, govt must become totalitarian. Which is what most here seem to prefer.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
"what role did govt play in the Bangladesh building collapse" - RyggTard

None.

It is a pure Capitalist Failure. Another 400 murders by blood soaked business men.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
What created the dark ages was religious based virtue.

"What made western society enlightened was religious based virtue." - RyggTard
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (16) May 04, 2013
Now that:
AGW fabrications, which the Cult call science, have all been thoroughly debunked.
AGW Alarmism has failed. Remember the Polar Bears? Well, you don't have to, they are doing fine. You can still go and see them in the wild.
AGW intimidation of the 3% of TRUE climate scientists has failed.
The Convenient Lie has failed. It, however, did make the Cult's Vicar, Gore, a multimillionaire.
So with the globe cooling and the AGW Cult out of lies, they have now come full circle. This time, however, it's "scientists agree" not just 97%.
AGW Lies, the old is new again, but now with 3% more.

LIAR.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
Vendicar shows up and RyggTard's puts his balls in his mouth and sulks back to his place as a vile bridge troll.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) May 04, 2013
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes...-crisis/

Peer reviewed? Majority of scientists? ROTFLMAO.

Only a clueless idiot would expect to get away with pawning this off as being authoritative. :rolleyes:
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
"LIAR." - Deepsand

Yup, Antigoricle is certianly a congenital liar.

This is true of all global warming denialists, and TeaPublicans.

As someone who is trained in science, I believe that lying and the misrepresentation of data is the greatest crime that can be committed, since all other crimes stem from this distortion of truth.

Since Antigoricle, his denialist brethren and TeaPublicans are invariably congenital liars, I hold them with the greatest contempt humanly possible, for they continually commit the greatest crime possible.

Lying.

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
Your convenient lies have never succeeded, Tard Boy.

"The Convenient Lie has failed. " - Antigorical

Your dishonesty is transparent.

Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
http://www.forbes...-debate/

TROLL TRASH
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013

Survey of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Research
You will be shown the title and abstracts (summary) for 10 randomly selected scientific papers, obtained from a search of the ISI 'Web Of Science' database for papers matching the topic 'global warming' or 'global climate change' between 1991 to 2011. Please read each title and abstract then estimate the level of endorsement that is expressed in that paper for anthropogenic global warming (e.g., that human activity is causing global warming).
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
It's only a conspiracy when it's convenient for you, delusional rubes!

Which explains why you believe that AGW is a conspiracy.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
"So what role did govt play in the Bangladesh building collapse, besides not enforcing laws?"

None - they were obviously corrupt and are very culpable in a tragic situation. This is what I would expect from a very religious society.

Now let me pose you a question. Recently an explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas - killed 15 people, injured hundreds, and leveled half the town. Do you think that gvt. should be involved in establishing health and safety rules to try to minimize this kind of tradgedy? I certainly do. Of course there will be corruption (seems there was in this case) - and we now have to fall back on the media, and the courts, and civil society to try to hold the corrupt parties accountable. But - I believe we should expect government to play a part in keeping our world safe and healthy.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 04, 2013
Your convenient lies have never succeeded, Tard Boy.

"The Convenient Lie has failed. " - Antigorical

Your dishonesty is transparent.

Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
http://www.forbes...-debate/

Another steaming heap of TROLL TRASH.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 04, 2013
This is what I would expect from a very religious society.

What a bigot!
What is needed for any society to follow written and unwritten laws is virtue.
How do atheist/communist instill virtue?
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
How do atheist/communist instill virtue?

I don't know about communists - you will have to ask one. As for atheists - it may come as a surprise to you - but we do not need a magic book to help us understand about virtue. Of course there is no one model of an atheist - but if you look for example at humanism - you will find folks who spend much of their time pondering the issues of virtue. Virtue can come from the consideration that each of us is equally important, and we can build a system of virtue around the respect for the rights of all.

I see a lot of people planting bombs, and committing atrocities in the name of god - have not heard of any one recently blowing up others in the name of atheism. It is not bigoted to observe reality - to notice that at the heart of so much evil is the common denominator of religion.

I noticed that you did not answer my question. You really have trouble doing that don' you?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
ave not heard of any one recently blowing up others in the name of atheism

You didn't look very hard.
Communists, by definition are atheists and murdered millions.
The dear leader of North Korea executes those who fail him with mortars.

Virtue can come from the consideration that each of us is equally important, and we can build a system of virtue around the respect for the rights of all.


'Can' and 'do' are not the same.
How HAVE atheists instilled and promoted virtue?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
Looks like govt failed to enforce the law to protect private property in West, TX.
"According to one 2002 crime report, a plant manager told police that intruders were stealing four to five gallons of anhydrous ammonia every three days. The liquid gas can be used to cook methamphetamine, the addictive and illicit stimulant."
http://www.reuter...20130503

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
"Failure to report significant volumes of hazardous chemicals at a site can lead the DHS to fine or shut down fertilizer operations, a person familiar with the agency's monitoring regime said. Though the DHS has the authority to carry out spot inspections at facilities, it has a small budget for that and only a "small number" of field auditors, the person said."
"More than 4,000 sites nationwide are subject to the DHS program.

"This shows that the enforcement routine has to be more robust, on local, state and federal levels," said the expert, Sam Mannan, director of process safety center at Texas A&M University. "If information is not shared with agencies, which appears to have happened here, then the regulations won't work.""
http://usnews.nbc...ght?lite
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
I see a lot of people planting bombs, and committing atrocities in the name of god

Not according to the Obama administration.
Like the Clinton admin, Obama refuses to acknowledge the role Islam plays in attacks upon the west.
But the current regime does attack Christians in the military.
This is consistent with an atheist/socialist state that needs to control its subjects. Islam has a similar need so the 'liberals' are simpatico to Islamic law.
This highlights anther example of how 'liberalism' is a mental disorder. Islamic law requires the stoning of homosexuals and restricts the liberty of women. But the 'liberals' don't mention this.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
"You didn't look very hard."

Yes I did. I know it is hard for you to understand complex concepts - but there is a difference between something that is done by an atheist, and doing something in the name of atheism. It is like saying Bin Laden is a man- therefore all men are evil. No - Bin Laden killed thousands of people in the name of his god. My world is replete with examples every day of people killing in the name of their god. I don't see people committing evil acts in the name of atheism
The dear leader of North Korea executes those who fail him with mortars.

He is a crazy maniac - and he does not do this in the name of atheism.

How HAVE atheists instilled and promoted virtue?

By calling for an end to religion, and to all evil deeds that are done in the name of this, or that god. You want to see evil? Take a look at the taliban, or Westboro baptist church, etc. - all doing things in the name of their god.
djr
4.4 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
Not according to the Obama administration.

Nice two step you do there Rygg - just change the subject - ignore all the evil being done in the name of your god - and blame the Obama admin for evil being done in the name of another god - just overlook the fact that evil is being done every day in the name of this or that god.

You still did not answer my question - you really have trouble doing that don't you.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
"Coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing has ignored admitted bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's connection to his college's Muslim Student Association, a group that has close relations with both the Muslim Brotherhood and a local imam friendly with an al-Qaida operative."
" Tsarnaev associated frequently with the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

Read more: http://dailycalle...SKfCMQry

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013


ignore all the evil being done in the name of your god -


I don't ignore evil, regardless of the motivation.
'Liberals', however, are very quick to ignore and support the evil done in the name of humanity.
'Liberals' ignore the babies murdered by Gosnell in his abortion clinic.
'Liberals' ignore those murdered in Bengazi by Islamists.
And we can't forget how 'liberals' ignore the millions murdered by communists in USSR, China, DPRK, Vietnam, .......
BTW, Planned Parenthood was founded by an atheist and supporter of eugenics.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
Coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing has ignored admitted bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's connection to his college's Muslim Student Association, a group that has close relations with both the Muslim Brotherhood and a local imam friendly with an al-Qaida operative.

Precisely - thank you for making my point - evil being done in the name of this or that god. Fortunately - religion is on the wrong side of history and we will eventually purge ourselves of this evil - sadly - it is going to take many generations - I will not live to see the day we purge our world of evil (unless Kurzweil is right - and I live to see the singularity, but I am not getting my hopes up).
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013

I don't ignore evil, regardless of the motivation.

Yes you do. You spend your life spamming physorg (and probably other sites) with attacking 'liberals'. You constantly rail against the 'left' But you don't mention the evil being done by the 'right' On this very thread you have attacked Islam for the evil that it does - but fail to mention the evil being done in the name of the christian god (check out Westboro Baptists). You definitely are very selective in the evil that you are aware of.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
By calling for an end to religion, and to all evil deeds that are done in the name of this, or that god.


Put your money where your mouth is, prove your assertion by:
1. Stand up and proclaim your atheism at Oral Roberts U. in Tulsa.
2. Do the same at Temple Square in SLC.
3. Do the same at the Vatican.
4. Do the same at the Western Wall.
5. Do the same in Mecca.
If you are still alive, publish your results.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013

I don't ignore evil, regardless of the motivation.

Yes you do. You spend your life spamming physorg (and probably other sites) with attacking 'liberals'. You constantly rail against the 'left' But you don't mention the evil being done by the 'right' On this very thread you have attacked Islam for the evil that it does - but fail to mention the evil being done in the name of the christian god (check out Westboro Baptists). You definitely are very selective in the evil that you are aware of.

'Liberalism' IS evil.
I don't ignore evil, but time and resources are limited so I focus on the 80% of those who are evil and a threaten liberty. 'Liberals' and Muslims top the list today.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
I don't ignore evil

Yes you do - you demonstrate that all the time. You are selective about the evil you will denounce - that is ignoring evil

'Liberalism' IS evil.'

No it is not - any more than religion IS evil. There is evil done in the name of many things. You say that you focus on the 80% of evil - but you will not acknowledge the vast oceans of evil done in the name of the Christian god throughout history. If you are interested in living in a world purged of evil - you would have to be interested in seeing a world without religion, and without tribalism.

I could just as falsely state that conservatism IS evil. I am more complex than you - I recognize that there are plenty of conservatives who are good, moral, well intentioned folks. The evil comes from the person. I just notice that much evil is done in the name of god - and I believe we will be well rid of the notion of god - as we evolve as a species.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
If you are still alive, publish your results.

Look at your admission of how the pious religious folks actually do much evil. If you do not agree with them - they are likely to kill you - nice people. Many religious people go to atheist conferences and hassle the attendees - we smile and pat them on the head - who was it said "forgive them father - they know not what they do?"
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
I am more complex than you

So you say, but never demonstrate.
You chose to ignore that if you are an atheist in a Muslim state you would be executed so you wouldn't survive Mecca but you would survive every other location.
But dj claimed ALL religion is morally equivalent. A very simple, and false, observation.

Why is 'liberalism' evil? It denies that individuals have an inherent right to life, liberty and property and therefore any majority can proceed to deny life, liberty and property to any minority.
The atheist Ayn Rand said when you compromise with evil, evil wins.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
So you say, but never demonstrate.

Yes I do - it is the opinion of a simpleton that all liberals are bad - and that liberalism is evil. This is clearly your view. A more complex analysis shows an understanding that people are complex - some liberals are evil, some conservatives are evil. See - I demonstrated - of course you may not understand what I said.

But dj claimed ALL religion is morally equivalent.

No I did not. See - you are wrong - and cannot show that I ever said that ALL religion is morally equivalent. However - you make the determination that Islam is the greater evil. I am not qualified to make such quantitive determination. If you want some evidence that Christianity can be used for evil (you should realize that it says a lot about you that you did not know that) - check out this kind of article - http://www.huffin...943.html
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
Why is 'liberalism' evil? It denies that individuals have an inherent right to life, liberty and property

You would consider Obama a liberal correct? Can you show how Obama denies that individuals have a right to life, liberty, and property, in a way that say - Bush did not?

Does invading a country - and beginning a war that takes the lives of 100,000 people - suggest that you do not believe those people have the right to liberty? Just asking..
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
"The atheist Ayn Rand said when you compromise with evil, evil wins."

But you did not think one could entertain notions of virtue without reference to a god. Do you only think that libertarians can have notions of virtue without god - but others cannot?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 04, 2013
You would consider Obama a liberal correct?

No, I consider Obama a Marxist.
And 'liberal' is the term the socialist FDR used in his campaign against the 'progressive' Hoover.
A more complex analysis shows an understanding that people are complex - some liberals are evil,

You then believe that some people who would put a gun to your head, or hire someone to do so, and take your property, your life are good?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
"My time at Columbia made it crystal clear: liberals always believe they are morally superior. While they publicly state that their mission is to save the world from prejudice, patriotism, racism, greed, and inequality, they are, in fact, hostile and resentful towards anyone who has achieved self-made success through American values. It is in this cesspool of intolerance that Obama and his Marxist cronies hatched a secret plan to destroy our country. They openly hated America- calling it racist. They hated capitalism- and vowed to bring "the system down." "
"He (Obama) also admits publicly in his own book to not wanting to meet anyone at Columbia who wasn't black, Hispanic, gay, or a Marxist professor. His words. "
http://www.humane...assmate/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
"The atheist Ayn Rand said when you compromise with evil, evil wins."

But you did not think one could entertain notions of virtue without reference to a god. Do you only think that libertarians can have notions of virtue without god - but others cannot?

Where are they?
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) May 04, 2013
To repeat, Rygg, you're long on straw men and short on substance.

You have but two choices: anarchy and hierarchy. Which do you choose?

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
RyggTard quotes from "Wayne Allyn Root" who discribes himself as "a Capitalist Evangelist, serial entrepreneur, and Libertarian-conservative media commentator".

In other words he is a nobody who pays homage to pure greed and pure immorality, and pure evil, as does RyggTard.

We see this also in RyggTard's personal hero - Ayn Rand - who befriended a child murderer and rapist and referred to him admiringly as a "moral superman".

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
To repeat, Rygg, you're long on straw men and short on substance.

You have but two choices: anarchy and hierarchy. Which do you choose?


There are many options to keep socialists at bay and the most significant option is the law of nature.
Socialism will always fail as it violates laws of nature, but not without weeping and gnashing of teeth.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) May 04, 2013
To repeat, Rygg, you're long on straw men and short on substance.

You have but two choices: anarchy and hierarchy. Which do you choose?


There are many options to keep socialists at bay and the most significant option is the law of nature.
Socialism will always fail as it violates laws of nature, but not without weeping and gnashing of teeth.

DELIBERATELY EVADES THE QUESTION.

Anarchy or hierarchy? Pick one or admit that you're a Gordian Knot of contradictions.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
To repeat, Rygg, you're long on straw men and short on substance.

You have but two choices: anarchy and hierarchy. Which do you choose?


There are many options to keep socialists at bay and the most significant option is the law of nature.
Socialism will always fail as it violates laws of nature, but not without weeping and gnashing of teeth.

DELIBERATELY EVADES THE QUESTION.

Anarchy or hierarchy? Pick one or admit defeat.

In the vernacular of My Cousin Vinny, it's a BS question.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
You then believe that some people who would put a gun to your head, or hire someone to do so, and take your property, your life are good?

No - and I never said such a thing. I believe that many people who would be put in the category of 'liberal' by limited thinkers such as Rygg - are very good people. Some very religious people - who are also 'liberal' - such as my friend Jane - who is a church pastor - and a 'liberal' - are very kind, generous, loving people. See how complexity works - I did not think you would.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
Where are they?

I am here - and there are many others here with me.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2013
They openly hated America- calling it racist.

Have you read anything on the history of the south? Would you deny that America is a racist country? Do you know the history of slavery? Are you aware that the KKK is alive and well here in Oklahoma. Do you know nothing?
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (14) May 04, 2013
To repeat, Rygg, you're long on straw men and short on substance.

You have but two choices: anarchy and hierarchy. Which do you choose?


There are many options to keep socialists at bay and the most significant option is the law of nature.
Socialism will always fail as it violates laws of nature, but not without weeping and gnashing of teeth.

DELIBERATELY EVADES THE QUESTION.

Anarchy or hierarchy? Pick one or admit defeat.

In the vernacular of My Cousin Vinny, it's a BS question.

Is that who taught you to speak BS?

In short, you are trapped and seek to evade by pretending that the question is not a valid one.

You are an INTELLECTUAL FRAUD, worthy only of scorn and ridicule.
.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
"There are many options to keep socialists at bay and the most significant option is the law of nature."

What do you mean by' the law of nature?' I truly do not know what you are referring to - but I would love to hear.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
You then believe that some people who would put a gun to your head, or hire someone to do so, and take your property, your life are good?

No - and I never said such a thing. I believe that many people who would be put in the category of 'liberal' by limited thinkers such as Rygg - are very good people. Some very religious people - who are also 'liberal' - such as my friend Jane - who is a church pastor - and a 'liberal' - are very kind, generous, loving people. See how complexity works - I did not think you would.

Your pastor wants the govt to confiscate wealth and redistribute to people SHE thinks should have such stolen wealth?
I would remind her that Jesus told the rich man to DONATE.
These people are very generous with other peoples money.
It really is quite simple.
The complexity enters in when dj and Jane compromise with evil, or overlook evil, to justify their 'good' and soothe their conscious.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
What do you mean by' the law of nature?'

Socialists run out of other people's money.
Parasites die when their host dies.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) May 04, 2013
Anarchy or hierarchy, Rygg?

Put or shut up.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
Would you deny that America is a racist country? Do you know the history of slavery? Are you aware that the KKK is alive and well here in Oklahoma. Do you know nothing?


Slavery has a very long history. Modern slavery was banned in the British Empire because of he actions of Christians. Christians in the US also opposed slavery. Arab Muslims and other African blacks captured and sold slaves to the Western slave traders. Saudi Arabia banned slavery only a few decades ago and a Saudi official in Washington is accused of keeping slaves, NOW.
One of the leading democrat US Senators was a member of the KKK and AL, for the first time in over 100 years has a Republican majority in the legislature.
Blacks are racists among themselves judging each other by how dark or light their skin is.
Ever hear of the Black Panthers? How about La Raza (the race) a racist Mexican group. Or how about CAIR?
The US AG is a racist. He won't prosecute black on white crimes.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
Where are they?

I am here - and there are many others here with me.


There must not be very many and you are all VERY quiet.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 04, 2013
'Liberals' are racists. If a black or Latino or woman or homosexual is not a 'liberal' they are no longer considered to be black or Latino or a woman or a homosexual.
Here is a black conservative coming out of the closet.

https://www.youtu...BGdlfbfI

"But as Parker suggested, some black Americans still think they have to act, speak and behave in a certain way that conforms to the identity that a white, liberal media has created. "
"Whenever the mainstream media wants to know what the African American community is thinking, they invariably go to the usual old, left-wing voices, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, as if they speak for all black people.

Read more: http://www.foxnew...SNnEr8Pk

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
That is OK, because we consider you to be mentally diseased.

"I consider Obama a Marxist." - RyggTard
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 04, 2013
"The conservative rising star Dr. Ben Carson said on a Tuesday talk show that critics won't shut him up and that among the most vicious of his attackers were white liberals."
""They need to shut me up, they need to get rid of me," Dr. Carson said, as reported in Newsmax. "They can't find anything else to delegitimize me so they take my words, misinterpret them and try to make it seem that I'm a bigot."

Mr. Levin asked: And what about white liberals — how do they treat you?

"They're the most racist people there are because they put you in a little category, a box," Dr. Carson said. "How could you dare come off the plantation?"

Read more: http://www.washin...SNo44YTD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (15) May 04, 2013
Where are they?

I am here - and there are many others here with me.


There must not be very many and you are all VERY quiet.

Or, it is the case that we decline to engage in the fool's errand of trying to engage in rational discourse with a sophist such as yourself.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
"If a black or Latino or woman or homosexual is not a 'liberal' they are no longer considered to be black or Latino or a woman or a homosexual." - RyggTard

Yup. That is mental illness talking.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013

"The conservative rising star Dr. Ben Carson" - RyggTard

"Almost two full weeks since Tea Party folk hero Dr. Ben Carson appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show to insult the LGBT community by comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia, he announced on Wednesday that he was withdrawing as commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins' School of Medicine after a majority of the graduating class of 2013 signed a petition asking the administration to un-invite the neurosurgeon." - Think Progress

Yup. Sounds like a "Conservative rising star" to me.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 04, 2013
""The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years." -- Louis Farrakhan"
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -- Joe Biden
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." -- Joe Biden
"(Obama's) a nice person, he's very articulate this is what's been used against him, but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic." -- Dan Rather
http://townhall.c...ge/full/
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
RyggTard never answers questions. Doing so would require thought and expose his inabiltiy to think for himself.

"Anarchy or hierarchy, Rygg? " - deepsand
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 04, 2013
Give an idiot the means and ample opportunity and he will eventually hang himself. Which, is precisely what Rygg has done by championing the "Law of Nature."

While he evaded the question put to him re anarchy or hierarchy, he implicitly chose the latter, as the Laws of Nature, be they those which govern the formation, destruction and interactions between particles, or those which govern the formation and operations of macro-systems, including those of flora and fauna, are all based on hierarchy.

So, the real question becomes one of what sort of hierarchy Rygg prefers. And, this is the question that he truly avoids, for the answer does not flatter him but rather demeans him.

Rygg's preference is, simply put, for a hierarchy in which all is subordinate to his own selfish desires.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 04, 2013
Since you declined to define your terms in context, I had to research.
I choose anarchy.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (7) May 04, 2013
"Your pastor wants the govt to confiscate wealth and redistribute to people SHE thinks should have such stolen wealth?" - RyggTard

Poor Christian RyggTard can't even figure out the instructions from his own bible.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - Matthiew 22:21

Mental illness is like that.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) May 04, 2013
"I choose anarchy." - RyggTard

What is your address? I'll come visit and show you some anarchy and how the "law of nature" works up real close.

Perhaps then you won't be such a parasite on mankind.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) May 04, 2013
Since you declined to define your terms in context, I had to research.
I choose anarchy.

LIAR. Anarchy is NOT the "Law of Nature."

If you chose anarchy then your championing the Law of Nature is a lie.
Or, incredibly stupid.

If you chose the Law of Nature then anarchy is a lie.

Either way, you are a liar.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
"The white man is our mortal enemy," - RyggTard quoting Farrakhan

Refreshing. I respect Farrakhan for his blunt defense of his beliefs, although they are mistaken.

I would share dinner with him, even though he is wrong, simply because his views come from a moral center.

Your views come from a woman who called a child molester and murderer a "moral superman".

I would not share dinner with you, as you are too loathsome as an individual.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 04, 2013
Since Sandy won't define terms, I will."Anarchy means an absence of law. Sociologically it is the modern theory which proposes to do away with all existing forms of government and to organize a society which will exercise all its functions without any controlling or directive authority."
http://www.newadv...452a.htm

I am not championing the law of nature. I state that it exists. Socialism tries to wish away physics. Which is why it fails.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 04, 2013
Since you declined to define your terms in context, I had to research.
I choose anarchy.

LIAR. Anarchy is NOT the "Law of Nature."

If you chose anarchy then your championing the Law of Nature is a lie.
Or, incredibly stupid.

If you chose the Law of Nature then anarchy is a lie.

Either way, you are a liar.

Or, incredibly stupid.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
RyggTard remains blissfully unaware that he is constituted from a collection of single celled organisms that cooperate for the common good of the entire organism, even to the point of giving their own lives for the benefit of the whole.

"Socialism will always fail as it violates laws of nature" - RyggTard

Socialism the law of nature.

RyggTard's mental disease is keeping him ignorant.

deepsand
3.3 / 5 (15) May 04, 2013
Since Sandy won't define terms, I will."Anarchy means an absence of law. Sociologically it is the modern theory which proposes to do away with all existing forms of government and to organize a society which will exercise all its functions without any controlling or directive authority."
http://www.newadv...452a.htm

I am not championing the law of nature. I state that it exists. Socialism tries to wish away physics. Which is why it fails.

LIAR. You said "the most significant option is the law of nature."

And the Law of Nature is HIERARCHY, not anarchy.

Furthermore, to claim that anarchy would "organize a society which will exercise all its functions without any controlling or directive" is logically contradictory, as 1) anarchy involves the total absence of organization, which is the essence of society, and 2) no society can function as such absence a controlling mechanism, which perforce requires a hierarchy.

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
"I choose Anarchy" - RyggTard

"Anarchy means an absence of law." - RyggTard

Excellent. So you choose to live without any legal framework to protect yourself and your property from theft and destruction by others.

Your choice is the destruction of society and humanity so that your personal greed and your ability to that which rightfully belongs to others is not impeded or limited by law.

Tea-Baggers like you are a perfect example of the Intellectual and Moral Cancer that has all but destroyed America.

You need to be flushed.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
Correct.

"Furthermore, to claim that anarchy would "organize a society which will exercise all its functions without any controlling or directive" is logically contradictory," - deepsand

I have seen it all before. Hundreds and hundreds of times over the last 30 years.

Libertarian/Randites like RyggTard are dime a dozen,.and they will say anything no matter how factually flawed, or logically inconsistent as long as it furthers their goal of promoting their own personal and corporate greed.

I on the other hand am completely honesty when I state that I have NEVER encountered a Libertarian or Randite who wasn't a congenial and perpetual liar.

RyggTard fits the pattern perfectly.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
'Liberalism' IS evil." - RyggTard

Christ was a Liberal.

I therefore conclude that you are representing the interests of Lucifer.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
What is the hierarchy of the four fundamental forces?
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2013
There are only three fundamental forces Tard Boy.

"What is the hierarchy of the four fundamental forces?" - RyggTard

They are

Electroweak
Strong
Gravitation

And these may yet be unified.

You can't even get the fundamentals right.

Moron.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) May 05, 2013
1) anarchy involves the total absence of organization,

That's may be your definition, but not this one:
"a state of society without government or law. " This implies that a society exists so govt or law is NOT the essence of socity.

which is the essence of society, and 2) no society can function as such absence a controlling mechanism,


Again, if society exists without govt or law, it must be functioning so #2 is false.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 05, 2013
What is the hierarchy of the four fundamental forces?

As your cousin Vinny would say, that's a BS question.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (15) May 05, 2013
1) anarchy involves the total absence of organization,

That's may be your definition, but not this one:
"a state of society without government or law. " This implies that a society exists so govt or law is NOT the essence of socity.

TAUTOLOGICAL. A society does not "implicitly" exist just because your definition so claims.

which is the essence of society, and 2) no society can function as such absence a controlling mechanism,


Again, if society exists without govt or law, it must be functioning so #2 is false.

A society is defined by the rules that govern the relationship between its member.

No rules = no society = anarchy.

Stop being stupid.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 05, 2013
A society is defined by the rules that govern the relationship between its member.

Is it?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 05, 2013
The Latin word societas (joint pursuit, enjoyment, possession; society; alliance, partnership).
Why must there be rules to govern societas?

"The defining characteristic of society is that membership in a society is voluntary. Whenever a person feels that a society no longer meets their needs, they can exit it – choosing another one to replace it or even going without."
Fits into the definition of 'no rulers'.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 05, 2013
The Latin word societas (joint pursuit, enjoyment, possession; society; alliance, partnership).
Why must there be rules to govern societas?

What do you think the word "joint" means? What do you think the words "alliance" and "partnership" imply?

"The defining characteristic of society is that membership in a society is voluntary.

What do you think the word "voluntary" implies?

Whenever a person feels that a society no longer meets their needs, they can exit it – choosing another one to replace it or even going without."
Fits into the definition of 'no rulers'.

If one exits such that they are not subject to society's rules, then they are NOT PART OF SOCIETY.

Not only are you a sophist, but a very bad one at that. :rolleyes:

antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) May 05, 2013

If one exits such that they are not subject to society's rules, then they are NOT PART OF SOCIETY.

This would explain the AGW Cult's mentality and attitude towards the 3% of REAL Climate Scientists who refuse to tow the AGW LIE.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 05, 2013

If one exits such that they are not subject to society's rules, then they are NOT PART OF SOCIETY.

This would explain the AGW Cult's mentality and attitude towards the 3% of REAL Climate Scientists who refuse to tow the AGW LIE.

Your attention span and vocabulary are rapidly shrinking.
djr
5 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
I would remind her that Jesus told the rich man to DONATE

He also said: "go, sell all that you have and give to the poor"

Did you do that yet?

Your history of slavery is terrible - you need to do some reading. The Christian church was highly complicit in the evil of slavery.

Socialists run out of other people's money.
Parasites die when their host dies.

OK - I understand - and if that is correct - you have nothing to worry about - as the law of nature will take care of removing your boogy man. Time will tell - right?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
Your history of slavery is terrible - you need to do some reading. The Christian church was highly complicit in the evil of slavery.


One must do a bit of research to see how the slave trade started in the Americas. From the arrival Columbus (financed not by Queen Isabelle, but Luis de Santangelo a "converted" joo) with the capture and subsequent sale of 500 natives by Columbus' "christian" (converted joos) passengers, to the ownership of the slave ships by jooish men in Newport and New Amsterdam, the slave trade was enabled by a duplicitous "race". Many of these same men were largely responsible for the "freedom of religion" portion of the Bill of Rights, a large portion of the early joos in America had been exiled from their countries of origin due to their destructive behavior and used their finances and influence to coerce the framers. The likelihood of a ship owner or a slave owner by joos was nearly 5 times higher than that of a non joo. Converted? Nope, just joos.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
dj, the Christian church is less than 2000 years old. Slavery predates the Christian church by thousands of years.
Maybe its too simple for dj to understand, but any church is an organization. Members of that organization may not support everything the organization supports. Some like Martin Luther stood up, stated his objections and led to Protestantism who for the first time had the opportunity to read the New Testament. Wilberforce and others were a part of that Protestant group and were able to ban slavery throughout the British Empire.
British ships blockaded many African ports until they closed their slave markets.
Slavery still persists in Africa, Europe, and in the rest of the world in spite of regulation banning the practice.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
dj, the Christian church is less than 2000 years old. Slavery predates the Christian church by thousands of years.
Maybe its too simple for dj to understand, but any church is an organization. Members of that organization may not support everything the organization supports. Some like Martin Luther stood up, stated his objections and led to Protestantism who for the first time had the opportunity to read the New Testament. Wilberforce and others were a part of that Protestant group and were able to ban slavery throughout the British Empire.
British ships blockaded many African ports until they closed their slave markets.
Slavery still persists in Africa, Europe, and in the rest of the world in spite of regulation banning the practice.
'Liberals' don't seem t have much difficulty with forcing all people to be slaves of the state, keeping them dependent upon the state and dictating what they can do.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
ou have nothing to worry about - as the law of nature will take care of removing your boogy man. Time will tell - right?


No need to worry if you don't mind people suffering like those in DPRK, Cuba, Venezuela, ... and don't mind the waste and loss of capital infrastructure built to date.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (31) May 05, 2013
Republicans and Libertarians tell me that they owe future generations nothing since they get nothing in return from future generations in return for their consideration.

In other words, since there is nothing in it for them, future generations can go to hell.


Your "In other words" interpretation is faulty. If you understood the libertarian point of view, you'd be one.

What they told you instead, is that there must be an actual experienced cause / effect relationship for the masses to respond to. Those Libertarians are speaking in terms of actual natural mechanisms that play out in actual fact,.not of idealistic and theoretical morality that people "should" obey.

The masses are not going to be motivated to adjust there behavior away from an egoistically based one, on a theory or conjecture wrt future states. The supposed increased temperature has to be THE THING which changes their behavior, as a free natural reaction,... otherwise coercion and force will replace freedom.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 05, 2013
Rygg: " Members of that organization may not support everything the organization supports."

How convenient of you to rationalize when it suits your argument. Earlier you quoted Rand - "when you compromise with evil - evil wins" Do you see the contradiction in your position? I thought not - it would require critical thinking. Sufficient to point out that you call evil out when it suits you (evil liberals, evil moslems), but compromise with evil when it suits you.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (32) May 05, 2013
Survival of the fittest which implies competition, and egoism which implies profiting in seeking to improve ones own condition, and freedom of choice, are natural and necessary survival mechanisms intrinsic to all life on this planet.

These natural mechanisms are, not by coincidence, fundamental to capitalism. In fact, capitalism is a result of them existing as a nature of man. Freedom and capitalism work because they work WITH the intrinsic nature of man, rather than against them. Socialism and communism fails because they have to oppress these natural instincts of man,.. they work against the grain of nature, rather than taking advantage of this existent force.

And BTW, none of this has a rats ass to do with selfishness. The natural state of man is a moral one, while its oppression is counter to morality.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 05, 2013
Rygg: " Members of that organization may not support everything the organization supports."

How convenient of you to rationalize when it suits your argument. Earlier you quoted Rand - "when you compromise with evil - evil wins" Do you see the contradiction in your position? I thought not - it would require critical thinking. Sufficient to point out that you call evil out when it suits you (evil liberals, evil moslems), but compromise with evil when it suits you.

Just one more example of dj's classist pov.
If an individual is a Christian, then according to atheist dj, that individual supports everything any organized Christian group and done, or not done. Fortunately for Christians, they can refer to the New Testament for reference if they disagree with the Church. This is what Martin Luther did along with translating and publishing a Bible for his fellow Germans to read for themselves. (cont)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) May 05, 2013
(cont.)
The USA has a Constituiton and source documents that show what motivated the authors and those who ratified the Constitution. The 'progressive' Woodrow Wilson attacked that Constituion and led the 'progressive' movement to destroy the Constition. 'Progressive', 'liberal', socialists all attack the fundamental concept that individual humans are endowed with an inherent right to life, liberty and property. They oppose this concept because it destroys their promotion of state power to enslave the popultion.

Atheists seem to have a problem in their ranks. Being 'anti' something does not easily promote a 'for' something proposition.
"Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff, thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists ". http://www.salon....salpart/
JohnGee
4.2 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
Atheists are not anti-religion per se. I may be foolish for thinking you know better.

I could procure a list of far more than 5 Protestants to embarrass you, but you would endlessly dance around a No True Christian fallacy.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
Here is an interesting critique of Keynes. Because he was a homosexual, his contemporary critics point out has no persona interest in children or his posterity. So, borrow and spend and live for the day was his essential economic theme.
" John Maynard Keynes would have done a great service if he had begun The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money with the disclosure that he was a Bloomsbury aesthete and a practicing homosexual. He could have explained how he and friends did not believe in self-denial or consider that they had any obligation to posterity. (An historian has pointed out that Keynes's famous remark, "In the long run we are all dead," is easy to make if you have no children and don't want any.)"
http://www.nation...ng-wrong
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
Atheists are not anti-religion per se. I may be foolish for thinking you know better.


That's not what I have observed.

And elsewhere in Bangladesh:

"Hundreds of thousands of hardline Islamists demanding a new blasphemy law on Sunday blocked highways and fought running battles with police, leaving four people dead and hundreds injured in the Bangladeshi capital."
""This government does not have faith in Allah. This is an atheist government, we will not allow them to live in Bangladesh. "
http://www.breitb...hemy-law
Muslims claim the corrupt Bangladesh govt, that didn't enforce building regulations, is atheistic.

djr
4.1 / 5 (9) May 05, 2013
Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff, thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists

Rygg calls me classist - because I point out the contradiction in his/her argument. Rygg's point is (and I agree with it) not all Christians support every position of the Christian church. Rygg fails to understand a fundamental point. Belonging to an organization carries some responsibility - the responsibility of understanding the tenets of said organization. It would be disingenuous of me to join the KKK - but then to say 'oh you cannot criticize me for belonging to that group - I don't agree with everything they do.' As an atheist - I do not belong to any organization. My atheism is a statement of an academic position - I do not belong to any group. It would be wrong to criticize me for being a male - because Bin Laden is a male - but not wrong to criticize me for joining the KKK. See the difference? I thought not.
JohnGee
4.2 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
Ryggesogn2, aren't you anti-Islam? Okay, whatever.

So you are saying because some Muslims say their government is atheist because it didn't enforce regulations... wait aren't you against regulations too?

How are you able to completely suspend your worldview in order to make a point that doesn't even make sense? This has to be an act.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 05, 2013
That's not what I have observed.

Atheists are a very diverse group - and there is no such thing as a standard atheist. The only thing that joins us - is our rejection of the notion of god. Many atheists that I know are anti religion. We are sick and tired of living in a world full of superstition. We advocate for a world in which rationalism is the dominant philosophy. We are a growing minority, and becoming more comfortable speaking out about views. We are on the right side of history. I have many friends who are theists - we tolerate each other - often have a fairly playful discourse about our beliefs.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 05, 2013
We are on the right side of history.

Based upon what?
All previous and present anti-God societies and govts created misery and tyranny.

Rygg's point is (and I agree with it) not all Christians support every position of the Christian church.

But you are very quick to tar all Christians for slavery.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (32) May 05, 2013
I have many friends who are theists - we tolerate each other - often have a fairly playful discourse about our beliefs


At least you recognize that your atheism is also a belief, and cannot attain any higher standard of knowledge than that, as with theism.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) May 05, 2013
Based upon what?

Data - as societies become more educated - they become less religious. Atheists are the fastest growing group in countries such as the U.S., and European countries. Time will tell - right?

"But you are very quick to tar all Christians for slavery."

Wrong - I am quick to point out the evil that has been done in the name of god - whether it is the christian god, or other gods. Read my post above - I expect people to take responsibility for their affiliation with organizations - but not necessarily personal responsibility for actions they were not part of. Being an atheist does not affiliate me with any organized group.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
At least you recognize that your atheism is also a belief, and cannot attain any higher standard of knowledge than that, as with theism.

That is actually a very complex issue. As an atheist, and a supporter of science - I use the metric of evidence for deciding what is. There is a lot of confusion over terms such as belief, and faith. People use these terms in different ways - so the dialogue becomes cloudy. I am adamant that I do not have faith. I accept things as fact when there is evidence to support such facts. But that of course becomes cloudy with (for example) issues such as the big bang. Do we have evidence for the big bang? Religion fails the test of evidence. I believe (that pesky word again) that does indicate that atheists have a higher standard of knowledge. We do not believe something because the holy book says so. I do acknowledge this is a very tricky area of discourse.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
Since you declined to define your terms in context, I had to research.
I choose anarchy.


Lol you only said that because djr was forced to answer his own question. You don't even understand the difference. You are clearly living in a world of your own making.
JohnGee
4.2 / 5 (10) May 05, 2013
At least you recognize that your atheism is also a belief, and cannot attain any higher standard of knowledge than that, as with theism.
There is an exception. Theism can be a distraction. Look at Newton. He spent most of his time trying to calculate the end of the world based on the Bible.

He attributed to God things he certainly had the intellect to figure out. It's unfortunate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
At least you recognize that your atheism is also a belief, and cannot attain any higher standard of knowledge than that, as with theism.
Right. That is why the proper stance to take is to be anti-religious.

The question of the existence of god is ludicrous and immaterial. Science has proven that the books all describe things which did not happen. Therefore we can conclude that the gods who allegedly wrote them do not exist.

And so as djr points out we are left to address all the wrongs committed in the name of these non-existent gods, under the aegis of religion.
http://www.youtub...;index=2

END religion before it ENDS US.
He attributed to God things he certainly had the intellect to figure out. It's unfortunate
And his deference to religious authority is probably what kept him from being burned as a heretic. Which is why he chose to do it while knowing better.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 05, 2013
evil that has been done in the name of god

But not the evil done in the name of communism (atheist by Lenin's definition) or political correctness?
Take a long long at the abortion trial in Philadelphia. State health officials refused to inspect any abortion clinics for years because they knew they would have to close many. So one clinic in Philly was hiring teenagers to administer anesthetic.

I am adamant that I do not have faith.

No, you are adamant that you don't want to acknowledge you have faith.
Women died from botched abortions.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 05, 2013
"Neil DeGrasse Tyson, perhaps America's most popular promoter of science, pointed out several years ago that there's no necessary conflict between science and religion. Not if you're being scientific about it. As a matter of a concrete fact, discoverable by investigation of the world around us, there are people who are scientists and religious, and there are likewise many religious people who embrace science. The idea that there's an intractable, inevitable, necessary struggle to the death between the two abstractions, "religion" and "science," is not supported by any evidence that can be discovered by an empirical investigation.

"The notion that if you're a scientist you're an atheist, or if you're religious you're not a scientist," Tyson said, "that's just empirically false." "
"Now historians' totem was "complexity," { dj is a historian?}
http://danielsill...cts.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 05, 2013
sandy likes the 'anarchy vs hierarchy' paradigm.

I prefer to substitute 'liberty vs tyranny' paradigm as it better describes the effects upon the individual.
It's interesting that many software companies promote their near anarchical corporate atmosphere, yet the product they are creating and selling demands a strict hierarchical structure to function.
The more structured an organization, the more hierarchy, the more levels of management the less liberty and responsibility any individual has and the more prone to tyranny from anyone at a higher level in structure.
A flat management organization (no ruler => anarchy) promotes more liberty and responsibility to those at lower levels. This liberty unleashes creativity and innovation in individuals and reinforces independence. And this is the precise reason 'liberals' hate such liberty. Individuals don't need to be dependent upon the 'liberal' tyrant for his life or liberty.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 05, 2013
Back to the building collapse in Bangledesh:

"In his study of the U.S. industrial revolution, economist Price Fishback of the University of Arizona found that "most [safety] regulations appear to have codified existing practices" that had already occurred because of economic development. When regulations ran ahead of industry practice, they were largely ignored."
http://www.forbes...-growth/
'codified existing practices' means the industry had already implemented safety practices because it was in their best interest to do so.
Govt then steps in and assumes the credit.
Reference: http://econ.arizo...back.asp
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (33) May 05, 2013
At least you recognize that your atheism is also a belief, and cannot attain any higher standard of knowledge than that, as with theism.


As an atheist, and a supporter of science - I use the metric of evidence for deciding what is. There is a lot of confusion over terms such as belief, and faith [..]. I am adamant that I do not have faith. I accept things as fact when there is evidence to support such facts. [...] Religion fails the test of evidence.

I believe [..] that does indicate that atheists have a higher standard of knowledge...


Not really. The standards are exactly equivalent between atheism and theism.

Both put forward metaphysical positions, 'god exists' or 'god does not exist'. Science cannot help you escape this either. Metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, whether it be positive or negative. The correct logical position, to avoid evoking the standard of belief, is to be Agnostic, and regard the question as unknowable in principal.
djr
5 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
But not the evil done in the name of communism (atheist by Lenin's definition) or political correctness?

Evil has been done by many throughout history. Communists have been some of the worst. The philosophy was well meant - but as is so often the case - power corrupts - and without checks and balances - the powerful commit atrocities. I am well aware of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Amin, etc. etc. Western powers have often supported these monsters. Oceans of evil were done by many European powers in the colonial conquests of past centuries. Tribalism and religion have often been the excuses for these atrocities. We need to evolve beyond them. Unlike you - I am not affiliated with any group. I target religion - because it seems to me today to be the number one excuse for evil. Evil is evil - period.
djr
4 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
The correct logical position, to avoid evoking the standard of belief, is to be Agnostic, and regard the question as unknowable in principal.

We disagree. I am not agnostic about leprechauns - there is no evidence for there existence - so I do not believe in them. Same for Santa Clause, fairys, angels, unicorns, etc. Are you agnostic about the existence of Zeus? What about Shiva, or Allah? If you choose to believe in god - how do you pick the right one. It is strange to me how simple the premise is - I believe in things for which there is evidence - and yet so many want to argue with me about it - and it seems so straight forward to me.
djr
5 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
No, you are adamant that you don't want to acknowledge you have faith.
Women died from botched abortions.

No - read my lips - I do not have faith. You do not get to dictate how I think. It is interesting how you want to push the ideal of individual liberty (an ideal I support - with many caveats) - but then you want to dictate to me how I will think. How contradictory of you. Do you understand that? I thought not.

Your statement about women dying seems very disjoint - and to have nothing to do with the sentence it is connected to - very strange.
djr
5 / 5 (8) May 05, 2013
Rygg: "most [safety] regulations appear to have codified existing practices"

You really know how to rationalize don't you? Governments have done nothing to promote safety in the work place - it is all the altruism of the generous business owners that have pushed countries like the U.S. and European countries to have safety standards such as fire exits, sprinkler systems etc. The Triangle Shrtwaist Factory fire was probably due to corrupt government inspectors - refusing to enforce those government regulations that were brought about as a result of the altruism of the generous factory owner (sarcasm). You are a mess of hypocrisy and rationalization. Read up on the Shirtwaist fire and try to square that with your crazy post. http://en.wikiped...ory_fire As a result of this fire - many government regulations were implemented - that made U.S. factories safer.
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (14) May 05, 2013
sandy likes the 'anarchy vs hierarchy' paradigm.

I prefer to substitute 'liberty vs tyranny' paradigm as it better describes the effects upon the individual.

Prefer what you will, but yours remains a false equivalency.

The fact is that you now submit such preference only because you are on the horns of a dilemma from which you desperately seek to escape.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 06, 2013
Governments have done nothing to promote safety in the work place -

You assert businesses only want to kill and maim their employees.
As noted earlier, many times, the UL was created by insurance companies to promote appliance safety, and IIHS has more rigorous tests then the govt. The first patent for auto seat belts was in 1885 and for a child seat in 1921 and were not motivated by the govt.
Do we have evidence for the big bang? Religion fails the test of evidence.

How did the author of Genesis know about the Big Bang thousands of years ago? It was the religious who began science to uncover and learn more of God's creation.
Wrong - I am quick to point out the evil that has been done in the name of god

But not in the same of socialist govt. You promote govt.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 06, 2013
From a (former?) leftist, why the left hates families (Keynes?):
"Those of us who worked there had a fixed belief in our own superiority and righteousness. We saw ourselves as clever and civilised champions of liberal thought.
{Sounds like many here: dj, sandy, etc}
I felt loved and cherished, the favoured child of a wonderful and impressive family."
"Above all, we knew we were on the side of the angels, while across the barricades hatchet-faced Right-wingers represented the dark forces of human nature and society that we were all so proud to be against. "
"with argument replaced by insult and abuse, {Sound familiar} taken leave of reality itself."

Read more: http://www.dailym...SWGhzDJ7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It a long article and will annoy 'liberals'.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (31) May 06, 2013
The correct logical position, to avoid evoking the standard of belief, is to be Agnostic, and regard the question as unknowable in principal.


I am not agnostic about leprechauns - there is no evidence for there existence - so I do not believe in them. Same for Santa Clause, fairys, angels, unicorns, etc. Are you agnostic about the existence of Zeus? What about Shiva, or Allah? If you choose to believe in god - how do you pick the right one?


I am an agnostic. I am not agnostic about leprechauns, Santa Clause, fairies, angels, and unicorns because those things are not deities for which the terms atheist and agnostic properly refer.

As an atheist, you are "[using] the metric of evidence for deciding what is", by your own admission. Evidence is not amendable to metaphysical speculation. Metaphysics can not be a source of knowledge, and this is epistemologically true not only for knowledge in a positive sense, but also knowledge in a negative sense.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 06, 2013
,... You may evoke a standard of belief and be an atheist if you want, but then you are on the same rational level as a theist. The standard of both positions is belief. Now religious people also invoke faith, which is trust or confidence in their deity, and already presumes belief.

It is more rational, imo, to be agnostic and simply regard such questions as unanswerable in principal. I'll even let you say such questions are meaningless wrt knowledge, but not meaningless metaphysically speaking, as many questions are unanswerable but are valid nevertheless.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 06, 2013
Metaphysics can not be a source of knowledge,

"It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. "
http://plato.stan...physics/
What do you mean by 'metaphysics'?
Precise definition of terms is very important. Which is why I define what I mean by socialism and why I put "progressive" and "liberal" in quotes do note that the original meaning of the word has been hijacked by socialists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
evil done in the name of communism
Your god claims to be morally superior but the despotism he inspires is arguably much more efficient at eliciting the most immoral behavior from adherents. The structure of leninism is obviously religious.

God-based govts are just as bad as, if not worse than, any other at oppressing and killing. Why is this ryggy?

If there had been 6M cathars in southern france the grand inquisitor would have killed them all. Had there been zyklon B back then, he would have killed them a lot more efficiently.
"The notion that if you're a scientist you're an atheist, or if you're religious you're not a scientist," Tyson said, "that's just empirically false."
Science is confidence based on evidence. Faith is belief despite evidence. Tyson is being political because he has to be but he is decidedly anti-religious because he accepts the evidence that religions are anti-evidence and anti-knowledge by their nature.
http://www.youtub...TMUTOz0w
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (28) May 06, 2013
Metaphysics can not be a source of knowledge,

"It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. "
What do you mean by 'metaphysics'?
Precise definition of terms is very important. Which is why I define what I mean by socialism and why I put "progressive" and "liberal" in quotes do note that the original meaning of the word has been hijacked by socialists.


I agree about the historical misuse of "liberal".

Anyway, metaphysics concerns questions, that although valid, ...are not amendable to scientific method. It simply means such proposed entities are not components of empirical reality, by which I mean, reality as conceptual known through observation.

Even within science itself, questions of Being arise and people who think they are scientifically minded fall into the metaphysical trap quite routinely. I've posted on the distinction wrt quantum mechanics, etc, many times at this site, i.e. recently here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
Re communism and religion

"...such representation on the contrary abolishes all natural and spiritual distinctions by enthroning in their stead the immoral, irrational and soulless abstraction of a particular material object and a particular consciousness which is slavishly subordinated to this object...This abject materialism, this sin against the holy spirit of the people and humanity..."
'Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood'

Marx appeals to the notions of 'soul' and 'holy spirit' as the source of law and morality. Communism uses the same promises of eternal life and favoritism as does any other religion. Hitler, stalin, and mao were against any religion but their own. As is any religion, at any period or location past and present.

"18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." john3
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
Anyway, metaphysics concerns questions, that although valid, ...are not amendable to scientific method.
Which only means, they are not valid and so pertain to nothing. More crap-peddling.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 06, 2013
God-based govts are just as bad as, if not worse than, any other at oppressing and killing

Stalin, Hitler, Mao murdered ~100 million.
Marxist and fascists govt were based on science, so they asserted, and many still attempt to justify Marxism with science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
God-based govts are just as bad as, if not worse than, any other at oppressing and killing

Stalin, Hitler, Mao murdered ~100 million.
Marxist and fascists govt were based on science, so they asserted, and many still attempt to justify Marxism with science.
Proportionately, religions have killed far more. One example - hindus eliminated buddhism in india.

But my point is that religion is supposed to offer a remedy for all this killing and oppressing. Obviously it is NO BETTER than anything else. NO DIFFERENCE. No religion has ever made the world better, only much WORSE because of their reproductive aggression and bigotry.

Your book even offers explicit instructions. Read joshua on just how to depopulate and overrun.

And communism is structurally the same thing as any other religion. Medieval europe is indistinguishable from red china at its worst.
djr
5 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
Rygg: "You assert businesses only want to kill and maim their employees"

No I do not - and never have. When you lead off your post with such total lies - how do you possibly expect to be taken seriously - you are either a knowing liar - or not capable of reading. I have never said anything that could be construed as suggesting businesses only want to kill and maim their employees - you have lost all credibility - there is no point in debating with you - from this point on I will adopt Vendi's stance - the only rational thing to do is to call you out on your stupid lying.
djr
5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2013
noumenon: I am not agnostic about leprechauns, Santa Clause, fairies, angels, and unicorns because those things are not deities for which the terms atheist and agnostic properly refer.

Firstly - you and I have a different definition of the term - so it is hard to have a conversation. Agnostic does not exclusively refer to a deity. Here - from dictionary.com - "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality."

That aside - the wider issue is regarding metaphysics. If you have an area of knowledge that cannot be known - I am not interested in discussing it - because it cannot be known. When you figure out a way of knowing it - then we can talk. However - the subject of god can be addressed. If you tell me that your god can heal me of being deaf - and I ask you to prove it - and you are not able to - then I dismiss the idea that you actually have a god - I conclude that this god is in your imagination.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 06, 2013
I have never said anything that could be construed as suggesting businesses only want to kill and maim their employees -


That was the gist of your comment about Bangladesh. Blaming the building collapse on businesses buying 'cheap' clothes.

dj: " Do you support government oversight of building codes? Or do you approve of a world in which factories packed to the hilt with low paid workers collapse - and kill hundreds of workers?"

As I pointed out the Bangladesh govt does have building codes. Why do you assume they did not?
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) May 06, 2013
Marx appeals to the notions of 'soul' and 'holy spirit' as the source of law and morality. Communism uses the same promises of eternal life and favoritism as does any other religion. Hitler, stalin, and mao were against any religion but their own. As is any religion, at any period or location past and present. ..[...]..And communism is structurally the same thing as any other religion.


"Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion."
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) May 06, 2013
Firstly - you and I have a different definition of the term - so it is hard to have a conversation. Agnostic does not exclusively refer to a deity. Here - from dictionary.com - "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality."


In the present context the definition is should be strictly same,. i.e. we are not discussing immortality.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) May 06, 2013
The wider issue is regarding metaphysics. If you have an area of knowledge that cannot be known - I am not interested in discussing it - because it cannot be known. When you figure out a way of knowing it - then we can talk.

However - the subject of god can be addressed. If you tell me that your god can heal me of being deaf - and I ask you to prove it - and you are not able to - then I dismiss the idea that you actually have a god - I conclude that this god is in your imagination.


That is sloppy reasoning.

The subject of god IS metaphysical and is an area that cannot be addressed through evidence, period.

A person of faith being unable to cure your deafness despite believing god can heal, means only that that person could not command god to do so, or that they were mistaken that god could heal you or heal at all,... which has zero relevance on the question of gods existence only of that persons belief.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) May 06, 2013
,.. whom could not have had evidence based empirical knowledge of such attributes of god, as metaphysics can not be a source of knowledge,.. only belief,.. thus your atheism based on that lack of evidence is invalid.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 06, 2013
"Because your biography refutes the liberal stereotype of the permanently victimized Hispanic. Although a first-generation American who didn't absorb English until you got to kindergarten, you easily assimilated, excelled in school, and embraced the country that welcomed your parents to its shores. You served this country as an aircraft carrier pilot and Navy SEAL, earned a Harvard MBA, and made it big in business. You are a poster boy for the American Dream. And Democrats hate you for it because it undermines their narrative of grievance.

Class warfare is today the liberal ammunition of choice, and so rather than celebrate your success, Democrats will be inclined trash it. "
http://bostonhera...ory_line
Who are the racists here? 'Liberals' from MA.
djr
5 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
That was the gist of your comment about Bangladesh. Blaming the building collapse on businesses buying 'cheap' clothes.

No it was not - I have never said anything that could be construed as suggesting that businesses only want to kill and maim their employees. As previously stated - Rygg is a liar. Rygg feigns to be interested in conversation, and issues such as virtue - Rygg feigns morality - and wants us to be impressed in religious piety - and in reality - Rygg is a corrupt liar - a waste of energy in terms of the exchange of ideas, a hypocrite, a liar.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
That is sloppy reasoning.

No it is not - it is very precise reasoning - it is asking you to support your claims with evidence. If you do not support your claims with evidence - you can claim what ever you want - and insist that I must believe it - because you said so. That is sloppy reasoning. Here is some more sloppy reasoning on your part - "The subject of god IS metaphysical and is an area that cannot be addressed through evidence, period". The subject of god can be addressed through evidence. If you do not supply evidence - then you have no way of validating your position - and thus your position is indefensible. Theism and atheism are not logically equivalent - atheism is the absence of a belief - theism is an active belief. Argue around in circles all you want - and evade the big question I asked - are you agnostic on Shiva (Shiva is a deity - so even fits your lazy use of English).
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
In the present context the definition is should be strictly same,. i.e. we are not discussing immortality.

We are having an abstract discussion about how one can Know. In the context of that discussion - I was using the term agnostic correctly - you showed a lack of understanding of English - that is sloppy.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (11) May 06, 2013
No it was not - I have never said anything that could be construed as suggesting that businesses only want to kill and maim their employees.


Yes, you did say something that could be so construed.
Here it is again:

dj: " Do you support government oversight of building codes? Or do you approve of a world in which factories packed to the hilt with low paid workers collapse - and kill hundreds of workers?"

Aside from the false choice offered, you presumed that businesses in Bangladesh didn't care if their employees are killed or maimed otherwise they wouldn't be so packed to the hilt the building collapses.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) May 06, 2013
That is sloppy reasoning.


No it is not - it is very precise reasoning - it is asking you to support your claims with evidence.


Nope. Science, not atheism, ...asks one to support their claims with evidence. Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities. You wrongly associate the two because you think, incorrectly, that science extends to the domain of metaphysics. It doesn't.
djr
5 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
Yes, you did say something that could be so construed

No I did not. The quote you gave above in NO way suggests that I think that businesses ONLY want to kill an maim their employees. I believe that you understand this point - and you just want to lie - and cause controversy - this makes you the worst kind of troll - a person with no virtue - and a waste of my time. Go crawl back under your rock.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) May 06, 2013
The subject of god IS metaphysical and is an area that cannot be addressed through evidence.
. The subject of god can be addressed through evidence.


Not even in principal. Those on the other side of the argument are also equally wrong if they attempt to point to existence of things for "evidence" for god's existence.

Empirical Reality, the domain of science, and basis of possible knowledge,... is that which can be deduced from repeatable observations.

The notion of god is conceived as being Incorporeal and Omnipresence, and therefore is not amendable to Inductive reasoning.

Theism and atheism are not logically equivalent - atheism is the absence of a belief - theism is an active belief.


If it was simply the 'absence of a belief', it would be a redundant term. It is specifically Rejection of belief in the existence of deities. It is making an implicit statement about metaphysical truths, i.e. god does NOT exist.
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
Noumenon - understand it if you want to - and don't if you don't want to - I don't care. It is pretty simple. As you say - science asks one to support their claims with evidence. If you cannot support your claim with evidence - then you fail the test of science. If you claim that god exists, but cannot support your claim with evidence - you fail the test of science. So you see - science can be involved in the question of the existence of god. It is of no consequence to me what you believe - but it is of interest that you want to participate in a fairly interesting topic - but are incapable of understanding so basic a point. Again - Atheism, and Theism are not logically equivalent - there is a very clear and substantive difference. Atheists don't beleive in fairy stories - we ask for evidence.
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
"If it was simply the 'absence of a belief', it would be a redundant term"

That is false. This statement is perfectly congruent. 'I do not believe in god - therefore I am an atheist.'

Which god do you believe in? How did you arrive at that determination? If you were advising me - how would you tell me I should decide which god to believe in? Do you believe in Shiva? If not - why not?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 06, 2013
I see you don't read posts objectively and are less than logical. Again, science asks for evidence,... naive atheist wrongly think that lack of evidence, means proof of non-existence.

I just told you "The notion of god is conceived as being Incorporeal and Omnipresence, and therefore is not amendable to Inductive reasoning (science)".

This means, that you must take the conception of god as given to you, in order for you to validly reject it. Therefore, you must take with the concept of god, Incorporeality,... which means unobservable.

In fact that is what differentiates metaphysics from science. Lack of evidence can do nothing to answer that metaphysical question,... because there may be no accessible evidence even in principal.
djr
2.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
because there may be no accessible evidence even in principal.

Then there is no way of knowing - and to believe in something for which there is no way of knowing - is illogical. Contrary to your assertion - I am logical, and consistent. I believe in things that I have evidence for - period. That is logical and consistent. You have not answered my questions - I wonder why. You are just like Rygg - argue around and around in circles - but don't answer direct questions - wonder what that means?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) May 06, 2013
"If it was simply the 'absence of a belief', it would be a redundant term"


That is false. This statement is perfectly congruent. 'I do not believe in god - therefore I am an atheist.'


Not quite. I don't believe in god either, but I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

The difference is that atheism is the Rejection of belief in the existence of deities, or more strongly, the position that there are no deities.

Once one understands basic scientific method, and the proper realm of inductive reasoning, one graduates from atheism to agnosticism, and regards all metaphysics as unknowable in principal,.. i.e. does not meet the requirements of becoming knowable.
djr
3.2 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
"In fact that is what differentiates metaphysics from science."

I would say that is what makes metaphysics nonsense - just like faith healing, shamanism, spirit guides, etc. etc. Now of course we are free to beleive what we want - including belief in magic books, fairy stories, etc. etc. Did you notice - this is a science site - and as you acknowledge - there is no accessible evidence for your magic fairy stories - so you really need to go to a magic fairy story site to peddle your snake oil.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 06, 2013
because there may be no accessible evidence even in principal.


Then there is no way of knowing - and to believe in something for which there is no way of knowing - is illogical.


That is your opinion. In fact metaphysical questions are valid in themselves. However, you said in response, "Then there is no way of knowing", which is correct, and is why agnostics are agnostics, and not atheist.

Which god do you believe in? How did you arrive at that determination? If you were advising me - how would you tell me I should decide which god to believe in? Do you believe in Shiva? If not - why not?


I already mentioned that I was agnostic above wrt metaphysical questions, so I did not see a point in answering those specific ones.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 06, 2013
Now of course we are free to beleive what we want - including belief in magic books, fairy stories, etc. etc. Did you notice - this is a science site - and as you acknowledge - there is no accessible evidence for your magic fairy stories - so you really need to go to a magic fairy story site to peddle your snake oil.


"My" magic snake oil? Do you not even read my posts. I'M the one stating that metaphysics can't be a source of knowledge,.. while YOU are the one engaging in debate on the topic and even hoping to make use of lack of evidence.

Just admit that you were roundly defeated and we'll pretend this never happened. Alot of naive school girls think they are all superior over religious people, because they have their science. They're ignorance of epistemology, and the scope of scientific reasoning gives them undeserved confidence.
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) May 06, 2013
Just admit that you were roundly defeated and we'll pretend this never happened

What a childish and purile statement - and your comment about school girls makes you a mysoginist. The issue about science and religion is an interesting one. I am sick and tired of living in a world dominated by religion. People killing and hurting each other in the name of god. We are making a lot of progress as a species - and I am excited about our potential to evolve further. That evolution will require us to leave behind magic thinking - therefore I champion science - and enjoy honest debate about the topic. Your childish, purile, mysogenistic comments take you off my list of individuals I am interested in knowing - f**k off.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (10) May 06, 2013
egards all metaphysics as unknowable in principal,.

Belief in in God is not unknowable, in principle.
One can't know until one dies. And, one will then know if you have a soul.
Pascal's wager is a good one.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) May 06, 2013
Just admit that you were roundly defeated and we'll pretend this never happened


What a childish and puerile[sic] statement - and your comment about school girls makes you a misogynist[sic].


No it doesn't, it makes me humourous. Do you not understand the concept of a humour?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 06, 2013
N, have you ever read Koen's Discussion of the Method? http://ukcatalogu...X1cpn-cI

If so, any comments?
If not, I recommend it.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 06, 2013
The issue about science and religion is an interesting one. I am sick and tired of living in a world dominated by religion. People killing and hurting each other in the name of god.


Most mass deaths were due to governments controlling human behavior or like wars,.. not religion. Are you sick of government controlling humans?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (30) May 06, 2013
We are making a lot of progress as a species - and I am excited about our potential to evolve further. That evolution will require us to leave behind magic thinking - therefore I champion science - and enjoy honest debate about the topic.


Many people who advocate science also hold a religion. So they are not mutually exclusive, by any means. You are a bigot for associating ignorance and faith.

Your childish, puerile[sic], misogynistic[sic] comments take you off my list of individuals I am interested in knowing - f**k off.


I guess that is your "mature" way of capitulating. I'll accept.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 06, 2013
People killing and hurting each other in the name of god.

How about in the name of the state?
"DEMOCIDE:
MURDER
BY GOVERNMENT
"
http://www.hawaii...RDER.HTM
http://www.hawaii...DERS.GIF
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (27) May 06, 2013
N, have you ever read Koen's Discussion of the Method?


No, but I'll look into it.

Historically, ut wasn't always clear what the difference between, what we now know as modern science and metaphysics was,.. they both were 'natural philosophy'. Only after a careful analysis of epistemology, the analysis of knowledge, from Descartes, Locke, Hume, Berkley, and Kant,... did the scientific method become clearly understood,... and so the realm of possible questions that science could answer.

Ironically, those who think that science can disprove metaphysics, implicitly require the faith that all that IS, can be empirical known.

Kant's "Critique Of Pure Reason", states exactly that, that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge,.... not because it is invalid, but because the scope of science is necessarily limited. He wrote it to invalidate arguments against the existence of god, once and for all. It worked.

Howhot
5 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
U.S. residents who believe in the scientific consensus on global warming are more likely to support government action to curb emissions

That sounds like a reasonable statement coming from a mass social study. I don't think climate really involves religion per say, unless your one of those few who are apocalyptic. I think it's a short jog for the believers of AGW to make change that will effect climate. The question we all have is will it be soon enough, and robust enough to save us from mass starvation and mid-latitudes misery.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (30) May 06, 2013
I am sick and tired of living in a world dominated by religion. People killing and hurting each other in the name of god.


Another inconvenient fact, besides that most mass killings occur due to government controlling human behavior and outlawing thought (Communist Russia and Mao outlawed religion),. is that most religions reject abortions, while the far left actively promote it.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 06, 2013
"Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown..."
http://www.dailym...wn-.html
Why do 'liberals' hate human life so much?
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (14) May 07, 2013
If it was simply the 'absence of a belief', it would be a redundant term


That is false. This statement is perfectly congruent. 'I do not believe in god - therefore I am an atheist.'

Not quite so.

There is a distinction with a difference between "I do not believe that there is a god" and "I believe that there is not a god."

An atheist holds the belief that there is no god. The agnostic holds no belief in either the existence or non-existence of a god.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (14) May 07, 2013
"Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown..."
http://www.dailym...wn-.html
Why do 'liberals' hate human life so much?

Why does Rygg dissemble so much?
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (13) May 07, 2013
The Latin word societas (joint pursuit, enjoyment, possession; society; alliance, partnership).
Why must there be rules to govern societas?

What do you think the word "joint" means? What do you think the words "alliance" and "partnership" imply?

"The defining characteristic of society is that membership in a society is voluntary.

What do you think the word "voluntary" implies?

Whenever a person feels that a society no longer meets their needs, they can exit it – choosing another one to replace it or even going without."
Fits into the definition of 'no rulers'.

If one exits such that they are not subject to society's rules, then they are NOT PART OF SOCIETY.
Still waiting for Rygg to try to explain his way out of this pickle that he's gotten himself into.
djr
3.2 / 5 (5) May 07, 2013
An atheist holds the belief that there is no god. The agnostic holds no belief in either the existence or non-existence of a god.

I understand this distinction - it is atheism 101. So deepsand - do you believe in Zeus? If you do not believe in Zeus - what does that make you - an atheist or an agnostic? If you do believe in Zeus - what is your basis for this beleif. If I say - 'I believe in things for which there is evidence - that is the basis of my thinking - it is fundamental to who I am' - what does that make me deepsand - and atheist or an agnostic?
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (16) May 07, 2013
An atheist holds the belief that there is no god. The agnostic holds no belief in either the existence or non-existence of a god.

I understand this distinction - it is atheism 101. So deepsand - do you believe in Zeus?

If by Zeus you mean a metaphysical entity, then I am agnostic.

On the other hand, if you mean the mythological immortal physical entity who impregnated human females then I am atheistic.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 07, 2013
"Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown..."
http://www.dailym...wn-.html
Why do 'liberals' hate human life so much?

Why does Rygg dissemble so much?

What am I hiding?
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) May 07, 2013
If by Zeus you mean a metaphysical entity, then I am agnostic.

On the other hand, if you mean the mythological immortal physical entity who impregnated human females then I am atheistic.

How did you draw the distinction between the two? There is no evidence for the existence of either - but some people believe in Zeus - just as some people believe in angels - and some people believe in a metaphysical entity. So - if you read people like Hitchins, and Dawkins, you will be comfortable with the idea that it is consistent to say - there is no evidence for X (you fill in the blank), therefore I do not believe in X - and call myself an atheist. The rest becomes mental masturbation. Metaphysics is the study of that which cannot be studied. In science - we study that which can be studied. Scientists can and do have opinions on the existence of god. Science does discuss this issue. Some say - there is no evidence for X, therefore X does not exist - others say - cont.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) May 07, 2013
there is not evidence for X - therefore I withhold judgement, and others believe in X. It is certainly interesting to not that there is a strong correlation between scientists and atheism. Some say that science cannot have an opinion about the existence of god - but brilliant scientists such as Eintsein and Hawking would disagree.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) May 07, 2013
"The more people believe scientists agree about climate change, the more willing they are to support government action"

Did the survey describe what 'action' the govt would take, how much it would cost, what is the efficacy of the action?

strong correlation between scientists and atheism.

I see a strong correlation between physicists and belief in God. Tyson, Davies, Max Planck, William Phillips, Marlan Scully...
The atheist scientist seem to be mostly biologists.
Funny that. Biologists still do not know how to create life.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (8) May 07, 2013
I see a strong correlation between physicists and belief in God. Tyson, Davies, Max Planck, William Phillips, Marlan Scully
Haha if tyson believes in god, it is certainly not your god as the vid which I posted, and which you did not watch, makes very clear.

So that leaves 4 which I wont bother to refute. Although I am sure that I could. But 4 out of the 1000s and 1000s of scientists which have lived... you have any actual statistics? Or you think that 4 is enough to determine 'a strong correlation between physicists and belief in God'?

Do you have a similar such disregard for evidence pertaining to other issues such as politics, economics, or the strength in your particular fantasy figure? Of course you do.

Luckily for us most scientists dont. Which is why they have discovered that your god buddy doesnt exist.
Biologists still do not know how to create life
And you godders still think this means that your god exists. But that question has already been answered. Too bad.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 07, 2013
Luckily for us most scientists dont.

Yes, that way they have no problem with the eugenics to create a master race.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) May 07, 2013
metaphysical questions
I am curious. Please name one metaphysical thing that is not knowable in any way which we are nevertheless certain that exists. Take your time.
Belief in in God is not unknowable, in principle.
One can't know until one dies. And, one will then know if you have a soul
But we know right now that YOUR god and all the bookgods dont exist. Because evidence tells us this.

1) Your book says your god is omniscient AND the ultimate truthsayer.
2) Your book says god wrote it.
3) Your book describes many things which evidence tells us didnt happen.
4) So we can conclude that: either your god is not omniscient and doesnt know history, or
5) He made those stories up to deceive you. In either case

6) YOUR god is not the god the books say he is. And so

7) We can disregard other outlandish nonsense found ONLY in the books like worship, immortality, bigotry, wishgranting, absolution, water walking, leper curing, sun stopping, water parting, inundating, and such.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (9) May 07, 2013
Yes, that way they have no problem with the eugenics to create a master race
Your god created the first master race who were justified in ridding the holyland (the earth) of all Untermenschen. The Chosen People.

But you all cant agree on just who these people are can you? You all think its you and your own particular tribe. Because your books tell you this. According to you.

Eugenics was obviously inspired by this demented mindset.
djr
5 / 5 (8) May 07, 2013
Rygg: "The atheist scientist seem to be mostly biologists."

Blanket statements with no supporting evidence - just what one would expect from a liar - with a political agenda to push, and no virtue - sickening.

Here is a study that seems fairly representative of the data - physicists and biologists are pretty evenly matched.

http://www.godand...sts.html
djr
4.9 / 5 (7) May 07, 2013
Rygg: "I see a strong correlation between physicists and belief in God. Tyson"

I wonder if Rygg meant Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Interesting embedded video -

http://bookseller...eil.html
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) May 07, 2013
Consensus!and!Controversy The Debate on Man Made Global Warming (PDF)
runrig
5 / 5 (7) May 07, 2013
The Debate on Man Made Global Warming (PDF)


Err - So?

Merely one man's opinion and just as good/bad as yours/mine.
From his website….
"Field: Social anthropology (PhD)
Positions: Senior Research Scientist, SINTEF Technology and Society, Work Research
Post Doctoral Fellow, NTNU, Dep. Social Anthropology
Research interests: Anthropology of globalization and political economy; Managerial culture and knowledge work; Financialized capitalism; War on Terror, culture of fear and securitization."

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) May 07, 2013
Rygg: "I see a strong correlation between physicists and belief in God. Tyson"

I wonder if Rygg meant Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Interesting embedded video -

http://bookseller...eil.html

Missed that one. But Tyson is agnostic, and unlike dj, doesn't observe a conflict with science and religion.
" America, 40% of American scientists are religious. So this notion that there's some… that if you're a scientist, you're an atheist or if you're religious, you're not a scientist, that's just empirically false. " http://bigthink.c...nd-faith

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (7) May 07, 2013
Missed that one. But Tyson is agnostic, and unlike dj, doesn't observe a conflict with science and religion

Isnt that cute. Ryggy is playing games.

The title of the vid which I posted which you didnt watch is 'The Erosion of Progress by Religions'. Tyson explains how whenever religions get in charge, progress stops.

Obviously, the enlightenment was a slow steady release of religious control. Less religion = more progress. This is what tyson is saying, and it is what he believes.

Ryggy ignores contrary evidence which is more evidence that ryggy has no respect for evidence, nor by extension, science.

Luckily Tyson does which is why he feels the need to explain how much danger religion poses to the world. This includes YOUR religion ryggy.
" America, 40% of American scientists are religious
In iran 100% of the people are religious. This is evidence that they must be smarter than americans, no? Or at least better.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) May 07, 2013
"Gregor Johann Mendel was a German-speaking Silesian scientist and Augustinian friar who gained posthumous fame as the founder of the new science of genetics"

"Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!" "
"Descartes constructs an argument for the existence of God that starts from the fact that he has an idea of an infinite being. "
"Many churchmen of high standing, such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, had suggested even more radical cosmologies than Galileo did; Copernicus' work itself had been available without controversy for more than sixty years before Galileo first published his telescopic observations. "
http://vaticanobs...stronomy
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 07, 2013
"Henry Goodell, president of what was then the Massachu-
setts Agricultural College, celebrated "the work of these grand
old monks during a period of fifteen hundred years. They saved
agriculture when nobody else could save it. They practiced it
under a new life and new conditions when no one else dared
undertake it."
7
Testimony on this point is considerable. "We owe
the agricultural restoration of a great part of Europe to the
monks," observes another expert. "Wherever they came," adds
still another, "they converted the wilderness into a cultivated
country; they pursued the breeding of cattle and agriculture,
labored with their own hands, drained morasses, and cleared
away forests. By them Germany was rendered a fruitful country."
Another historian records that "every Benedictine monastery
was an agricultural college for the whole region in which it was
located."
8
http://www.church...-ch3.pdf
djr
5 / 5 (7) May 07, 2013
Ghostofotto: Ryggy ignores contrary evidence which is more evidence that ryggy has no respect for evidence, nor by extension, science.

And yet spends hundreds of hours on a science site - spreading lies and disinformation - what strange motivation?
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (14) May 08, 2013
If by Zeus you mean a metaphysical entity, then I am agnostic.

On the other hand, if you mean the mythological immortal physical entity who impregnated human females then I am atheistic.


How did you draw the distinction between the two? There is no evidence for the existence of either

Simple. The latter, being physical, allows of empirical testability, while the former, being metaphysical, does not.
djr
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2013
Simple. The latter, being physical, allows of empirical testability, while the former, being metaphysical, does not.

So - failing to have the option of empirical testability - the former actually becomes mental masturbation - there is no basis for either belief or lack of belief - so just mental masturbation - which any one is entitled to - but one should not try to convincing others of their rightness - as attempting to convince others of the rightness of something for which there is not empirical evidence - is incongruent.
djr
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2013
deepsand - on the issue of empirical testability - do you believe in angels? If yes -are they physical - and therefore have empirical testability - or metaphysical? If the latter - what makes one believe in them?
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (13) May 08, 2013
deepsand - on the issue of empirical testability - do you believe in angels? If yes -are they physical - and therefore have empirical testability - or metaphysical? If the latter - what makes one believe in them?

My understanding of angels is that they are metaphysical.

I've no idea why some people believe in them aside from their having been so indoctrinated.
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (16) May 08, 2013
"Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown..."
http://www.dailym...wn-.html
Why do 'liberals' hate human life so much?

Why does Rygg dissemble so much?

What am I hiding?

Your selfish contempt for others?
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2013
"I've no idea why some people believe in them aside from their having been so indoctrinated."

Yet - I recently watched a show on the god channel - and the prophetess was able to see an angel (about 7 foot tall - with a blue hue) standing next to the interviewer. So this is metaphysics. And if we say - well can you prove there is an angel there - we are told 'this is metaphysics - it is different than science - so you do not have to provide proof. Quite a problem. And to see the evil that this shit can cause - look at this article on a 'psychic' who told Amanda Berry's family that Amanda was already dead. http://www.csicop...failure/
But we scientists are not allowed to question this nonsense - because it is 'metaphysics' - and area of study that cannot be studied!!!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) May 08, 2013
Ghostofotto: Ryggy ignores contrary evidence which is more evidence that ryggy has no respect for evidence, nor by extension, science
-For years. Ryggy used to be Marjon before physorg stopped banning people for posting nonsense. Ryggy was posting the same arguments then as he is now. Good times eh ryggy?

Note how he likes to use examples of science done by religionists from a time when people had to be religious to get anywhere at all? In institutions when the only such institutions had to be religious?

Tyson makes clear that progress increases as religious influence wanes, and he presents a lot of evidence. This is because religion relies on a lot of myths (lies) for credibility which are easily disproved.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2013
Another point ryggy has gotten very good at ignoring:
"Henry Goodell... "the work of these grand
old monks during a period of fifteen hundred years. They saved
agriculture when nobody else could save it.
Henry H. Goodell (1839 – 1905)... Since then we have learned:

"It assumes that 'Islam' and 'Enlightenment' have nothing to do with each other - as if the European Enlightenment emerged out of nothing, without appropriating Islamic thought and learning." On the other, "It betrays an ignorance of postmodern critique that has exposed Enlightenment thought as Eurocentric hot air."
http://www.social...ber=9680

-Enlightened euros got much of their inspiration from ancient texts which had been preserved in the islamic world. These texts and ideas had been heretical in god-dominated europe throughout the middle ages. It was only when the church began to lose strength that science could return to the west.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (32) May 11, 2013
A short list of people who, Because they are dedicated to the standard of empirical evidence wrt knowledge, consider themselves Agnostic on metaphysical questions, and not atheist,..

John Bardeen
David Bohm
Owen Chamberlain
Henry Cavendish
Francis Crick
Marie Curie
Charles Darwin
David Deutsch
Freeman Dyson
Albert Einstein
Enrico Fermi
David Gross
Murray Gell-Mann
Stephen Jay Gould
Hermann von Helmholtz
David Hilbert
Gerard 't Hooft
Michio Kaku
Joseph Louis Lagrange
Irving Langmuir
Albert Michelson
Carl Sagan
George Smoot
Edward Teller
Norbert Wiener
Eugene Wigner
Frank Wilczek
Immanuel Kant
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (15) May 11, 2013
"the line between paranoia and stupidity is very fine." - AntiGorical

A hilarious statement coming from a retard such as yourself who thinks that economic growth can continue to be exponential.

Where were you so poorly educated?
-- VendiTurd
Where was such a "rich" education wasted on you?
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (14) May 11, 2013
"the line between paranoia and stupidity is very fine." - AntiGorical

A hilarious statement coming from a retard such as yourself who thinks that economic growth can continue to be exponential.

Where were you so poorly educated?
-- VendiTurd
Where was such a "rich" education wasted on you?

Projecting again, I see.
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (15) May 11, 2013
"I've no idea why some people believe in them aside from their having been so indoctrinated."

Yet - I recently watched a show on the god channel - and the prophetess was able to see an angel (about 7 foot tall - with a blue hue) standing next to the interviewer. So this is metaphysics. And if we say - well can you prove there is an angel there - we are told 'this is metaphysics - it is different than science - so you do not have to provide proof.

There is a difference between saying "I believe that angels exist" and "I see an angel standing amongst us."

The former is merely the expression of a personal opinion re. metaphysical entities. The latter, though, is an assertion re. a material fact, one that requires empirical proof.

None here are claiming that the former must be accepted simply because it involves metaphysical matters, but rather that it requires the suspension of both belief and disbelief, that the truth of falsehood of any related claims are indeterminate.
Neinsense99
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.

Standard rubbish stubbornly repeated becomes substandard rubbish, especially when you pretend to speak for others.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 25, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.

Standard rubbish stubbornly repeated becomes substandard rubbish, especially when you pretend to speak for others.

I agree, AGW is rubbish.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (7) May 25, 2013

Conspiracy!



No, dumdum, what you quoted is called a deliberate misrepresentation. A conspiracy is when someone (say againstseeing or your own self) suggests that everyone involved in a study that is peer reviewed and reported in a scientific journal is paid to lie, and are part of a global group ("they") that are trying to steal your money, or liberties, or first born child or something.

Of course, you don't understand that because you are the guy who claims he didn't claim a conspiracy because he didn't use the word "conspiracy" while describing the conspiracy he sees all about him.

You forgot to mention the precious bodily fluids. Are you in on it too? You dastardly under-bed-hiding commie, you...
Neinsense99
4.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2013
What do you mean by' the law of nature?'

Socialists run out of other people's money.
Parasites die when their host dies.


And the intellectually bankrupt quote Margaret Thatcher and others without referencing the sound bites they use to give the impression the rhetoric is their own. The first comes from a woman (Thatcher) who rode the North Sea oil bubble money to lower taxes and put the cost of necessary services/infrastructure on future generations through debt, which is using other people's money and lives. The second has no clear relevance.

What do you mean by' the law of nature?'

Socialists run out of other people's money.
Parasites die when their host dies.

Neinsense99
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2013
They openly hated America- calling it racist.

Have you read anything on the history of the south? Would you deny that America is a racist country? Do you know the history of slavery? Are you aware that the KKK is alive and well here in Oklahoma. Do you know nothing?

It is apparent that the answer to that last question would be an affirmative response.

"the line between paranoia and stupidity is very fine." - AntiGorical

A hilarious statement coming from a retard such as yourself who thinks that economic growth can continue to be exponential.

Where were you so poorly educated?
-- VendiTurd
Where was such a "rich" education wasted on you?

The dog, it barks!
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
"I choose anarchy." - RyggTard

What is your address? I'll come visit and show you some anarchy and how the "law of nature" works up real close.

Perhaps then you won't be such a parasite on mankind.


The problem is that you'll likely find a swarm of his cousins living behind the same hill.

Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.

Standard rubbish stubbornly repeated becomes substandard rubbish, especially when you pretend to speak for others.


It looks like a sock puppet gave me a one. Oh boohoo...
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
I am sick and tired of living in a world dominated by religion. People killing and hurting each other in the name of god.


Another inconvenient fact, besides that most mass killings occur due to government controlling human behavior and outlawing thought (Communist Russia and Mao outlawed religion),. is that most religions reject abortions, while the far left actively promote it.

These 'atheist' regimes you reference had personality cults of their own, and North Korea has many aspect of a state religion in its deification of it's despots. Hitler closed freethinkers organizations, frequently used biblical references, claimed to do the work of the Lord in attacking Jews, and exploited centuries of Catholic/Lutheran hostility toward Jews. Your tired old smear-by-association is ridiculous.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
egards all metaphysics as unknowable in principal,.

Belief in in God is not unknowable, in principle..


That second sentence makes no sense. It's the existence of God that is the matter at hand, not whether or not there can be knowledge of your belief.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.

Standard rubbish stubbornly repeated becomes substandard rubbish, especially when you pretend to speak for others.

I agree, AGW is rubbish.

When you can't use facts, evidence or reason, twist their words. We know your play book.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 25, 2013
Goes all the way back to at least Galileo.

Galileo was attacked by his peers in science?
If you don't toe the line in AGW, your careers are not threatened by the Catholic Church but by the AGW faithful.
runrig agrees AGW is a religion.

Standard rubbish stubbornly repeated becomes substandard rubbish, especially when you pretend to speak for others.

I agree, AGW is rubbish.

When you can't use facts, evidence or reason, twist their words. We know your play book.

Yes, please do use facts, evidence and reason, Nonsense99.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
Ghostofotto: Ryggy ignores contrary evidence which is more evidence that ryggy has no respect for evidence, nor by extension, science.

And yet spends hundreds of hours on a science site - spreading lies and disinformation - what strange motivation?


He must be independently wealthy (family, not by his own 'smarts'), living off somebody else's money until he runs out of it (like his socialist straw man) or supported. You question his motives for such dedicated denialism, but one should also question the means.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf The Debate on Man Made Global Warming (PDF)

FalseEquivalence Not a PDF, but it's the goal of most deniers and their 'controversy' these days.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2013
By calling for an end to religion, and to all evil deeds that are done in the name of this, or that god.


Put your money where your mouth is, prove your assertion by:
1. Stand up and proclaim your atheism at Oral Roberts U. in Tulsa.
2. Do the same at Temple Square in SLC.
3. Do the same at the Vatican.
4. Do the same at the Western Wall.
5. Do the same in Mecca.
If you are still alive, publish your results.


You ready to pay him to do it? After all, that's capitalism. Money for services rendered.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (7) May 25, 2013
Ghostofotto: Ryggy ignores contrary evidence which is more evidence that ryggy has no respect for evidence, nor by extension, science.

And yet spends hundreds of hours on a science site - spreading lies and disinformation - what strange motivation?

Judging by the disinformation, smearing, distortions and personal attacks based on mistruths, Ryggy skipped that bit about "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", or has rationalized it's non-application enough that he can pretend one of the commandments doesn't mean him.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (15) May 25, 2013
I agree, AGW is rubbish.

Ipse dixit.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2013
[q}
Unions did a great job protecting the rights of Detroit's workers.
Unions decimated manufacturing jobs let's hope govt unions do the same for govt jobs. Sure, when it suits you it was all the fault of the union. Nobody wanted to outsource for more profit and to get around safety, labor and environmental regulations. Those must be the fault of the unions too, because no real American could possible care about workers enough to push for measures protecting themselves and their fellow citizens. Right...
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 26, 2013
Do you pay taxes, MysticalTard?

Do you obey traffic laws?

"People ALWAYS find a way around such regulations, they simply don't work." - MysticalTard

Do you murder your neighbours?

Do you rape their children?

To you take off your shoes at the airport? (bahahahahahah)

Talk is cheap... Loser.

Has he stopped doing all of the above. 'Just asking' :)
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (13) May 26, 2013
Yes, please do use facts, evidence and reason, Nonsense99.

Asked and answered. Not our fault that you're incapable of distinguishing between empirical facts and your fantasies.
Howhot
5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2013
The @Nein99 master said;
Standard rubbish stubbornly repeated becomes substandard rubbish, especially when you pretend to speak for others.

It is amazing the horse junk these deniers swallow. I've read their crap and it is rubbish and beyond rubbish.
@R2 however says
I agree, AGW is rubbish
but of course that is the non-sense that a tea-party toady would say. Heck, sending your kids to a public school is to these guys "socialism" . Just another freaking extremist that needs a lot lithium.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 26, 2013
Heck, sending your kids to a public school is to these guys "socialism"

It is.
Taxes (private propery) are extracted from citizens by local, state and federal govt and handed over to public schools controlled by unions.
Why is this not socialism?
BTW, the US public school system is modeled on the socialist Prussian school system to indoctrinate its citizens.
Hottie and others here have demonstrated the effectiveness of that socialist indoctrination.
But if socialism is so great, why must 'liberals' hide that tyranny in language?
Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson called socialism 'progressivism'. FDR ran against the 'progressive' Hoover and began calling socialism 'liberalism'. Many have been running from the term lately and now are reverting to 'progressism'.
Those who support liberty have not tried to hide by renaming liberty or freedom.
Why do socialists need to hide their tyranny and why won't Hottie and others defend socialism?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 26, 2013
"Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles."
http://www.realcl...343.html

I wonder how many of those who challenge AGW have been audited by the IRS?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (4) May 26, 2013
Immanuel Kant
Ahaahaaa

""I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism of metaphysics that is the preconception that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous criticism of pure reason, is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic, which wars against morality"[B xxx]. This shows that science must be limited and faith must prevail for without faith one is not moral, free, and thus God cannot exist nor can autonomy be achieved. When this doesn't happen metaphysics is plagued with dogmatism."

Kants drivel was specifically predicated upon the existance of the xian god.
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2013
Immanuel Kant


Though a puissant, he was very rarely stable. :)
Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2013

If one exits such that they are not subject to society's rules, then they are NOT PART OF SOCIETY.

This would explain the AGW Cult's mentality and attitude towards the 3% of REAL Climate Scientists who refuse to tow the AGW LIE.

Your attention span and vocabulary are rapidly shrinking.

That last is particularly alarming (not alarmist) because of the already meager starting point.
Howhot
5 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2013
"That one sank under, and rose again doubled up, but the demons that have cover of the bridge cried out: 'Here the Holy Face has no place; here one swims otherwise than in the Serchio;' therefore if thou dost not want our grapples, make no show above the pitch."

Dante.

In other words you don't want to cross that bridge. With respect to the AGW cult label (as it is not a cult but a scientific observation of man made global warming from burning fossil fuels) if you don't want the grapple, then don't show across the pitch. If you don't want global warming, don't burn fossil fuels. That is as plain as day isn't it R2?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2013
If you don't want global warming, don't burn fossil fuels.

That's half the motivation for AGWites.
Destroy cheap energy and punish the 'rich' that take so much from the poor. (But then the poor will just get poorer burning cow dung. But the socialists, I mean AGWites, don't really care about the poor.)
The other half of that motivation is to end the next most rational power source that will increase the liberty and prosperity of all, nuclear power.
But the oracle of the AGWites are low fidelity computer models of the climate which are tuned to showing CO2 causes GW. GIGO.
deepsand
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2013
BS, R2. The simple fact is that neo-cons hold the masses in great disdain, seeing them only as a source of cheap labor, and seek to get rich at the expense of all others.

We see through your lies.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2013
BS, R2. The simple fact is that neo-cons hold the masses in great disdain, seeing them only as a source of cheap labor, and seek to get rich at the expense of all others.

We see through your lies.

I don't know who neo-cons are except that many were once democrats.
By their actions, it is the 'liberal'/socialist that holds 'the masses' in disdain. First by lumping them into 'the masses' and assuming they, as individuals, are so stupid and helpless they need the socialist to protect them and feed them.
As for AGWites wanting to destroy prosperity, Ehrlich and his disciples want fewer humans and how many AGWites are promoting nuclear power to ensure the economies of the world have the energy they need to grow?
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2013
R2 spaketh and thusth does quote;
If you don't want global warming, don't burn fossil fuels.


That's half the motivation for AGWites.
Just was the quote from Dante's "Hell" was a warning about crossing a bridge; the scientific data assembled today gives indications of the AGW bridge we don't need to cross (nor want to cross) it also can foresee well into the future with the power of predictability to determine the consequences of the action. Just as the daemons under bridge warn of the consequences of crossing the bridge, the environmental response to Man's poisons on the world is a warning to all people of Man's responsibility of stewardship of the planet Earth.

As a metaphor for AGW, I think Dante's quote is perfect for the non-believers and anti-humanists anarchist like some from the deniers camp.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2013
the scientific data assembled today gives indications of the AGW bridge we don't need to cross

And AGWites want to cripple people so they can't cross.
Howhot
4.8 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2013
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid". B. Franklin.

R2 pleads stupid again with this retort;
I don't know who neo-cons are except that many were once democrats.
I can tell you, there were not that many of them. Neo-con or Neo-conservatives were created in the bowels of GOP with very little help from Democrats. It's only by some treasonous manipulations of election results (the invasion by Neo-cons at the Dave county presidential count) and the now recognized miss adventures in the Supreme Court was a Neo-con declared President. The consequences of that disaster in terms of the government structure the R2 doesn't like and flippant disregard of the necessity to have a citizen government regulate large financial institutions (just as one example, we could mention Iraq and Afghanistan). By contrast the actions presented by Gore are quite tempered, directed and sound in logical foundations.

Neinsense99
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2013
"What planet are these conspiracy nuts from?" - Deepsand

Planet Conservadopia, and it's forest moon of Libertoon.

They've upgraded the tin foil to a force field. They expect the black helicopter, but I have a shuttle and an older code to try....
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
Neo-con or Neo-conservatives were created in the bowels of GOP with very little help from Democrats.


"The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending"
http://www.global...eve/6483
If not for 'liberal' democrats grabbing their ankles for communists, neo-cons would not have left the democrat party.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2013
the necessity to have a citizen government regulate large financial institutions

What citizen govt is regulating the Federal Reserve?
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2013
""The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s"", Note I double quoted it. Who gives a rats butt except the wingnuts R2. Personally I could careless about the birth of conservatism or tea party. It's like putting lipstick on farm animals; They are all dolled up but no body wants to dance with them.

The always engaging R2 tea-party-winger asks (in an I gotcha-SOB tone), "What citizen govt is regulating the Federal Reserve?"

The Federal Reserve system has both public and private aspects. It was established under the "The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch. 3)." as an act of congress (the citizen representatives). The authority of the Federal Reserve System is derived from statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress and the System is subject to congressional oversight (our citizen representatives and regulators). Thus by proxy, the federal reserve is citizen regulated.

GO USA!
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2013
N, have you ever read Koen's Discussion of the Method?


No, but I'll look into it.

Historically, ut wasn't always clear what the difference between, what we now know as modern science and metaphysics was,.. they both were 'natural philosophy'. Only after a careful analysis of epistemology, the analysis of knowledge, from Descartes, Locke, Hume, Berkley, and Kant,... did the scientific method become clearly understood,... and so the realm of possible questions that science could answer.

Ironically, those who think that science can disprove metaphysics, implicitly require the faith that all that IS, can be empirical known.

Kant's "Critique Of Pure Reason", states exactly that, that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge,.... not because it is invalid, but because the scope of science is necessarily limited. He wrote it to invalidate arguments against the existence of god, once and for all. It worked.



Good call Noumenon. Philosophy of Science has roots!

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...