This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Sky World
31
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:29:44 PM »
Whilst we don't have access to the cores, there is nothing stopping individuals from taking their own samples - apart from the funding to drag their ass across the arctic, the scientific knowhow to take, record and interpret the data themselves and the will to do it.
Except for the government which would stop you and sweep the "incident" under the rug as instrumentation failure that got you and your group killed.
32
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:27:27 PM »
The whole trans/homo movement is anti-clinical, at best. Clearly there's something wrong going on (because it isn't natural nor healthy). Sure it's easier to tell someone that they're actually fine, but the right thing to do, the harder thing to do, is to get them to seek help.
33
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:23:51 PM »
You should be more considerate. While racism is wrong, you have to understand the experiences these people have had with their kind.
34
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:22:07 PM »
Are you another homosexual? Again, I don't have a problem with you people, but I don't want to start an argument.
How do I mute people again? (pretending someone told me the first time I asked)
35
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:19:33 PM »
Because there isn't any evidence for global warming.
There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question.
And as for this part
'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'
The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?
Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.
But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.
And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.
You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?
You cannot prove a negative, duh. However there is plenty of warranted skepticism against government studies, which is why I'm not going to take their word for it. Until they can show me their evidence clearly laid out, I'm not just going to swallow it—like a sheep.
>Weaselling.
So if I were to ask you to disprove an invisible giant tea cup floating in space, and you told me it was my job to first prove it, then by your own logic you would be "weaselling," simply by taking the logical route.
You are the one dismissing the claim with no basis for why you do so, other than 'you don't trust the gubermunt' You are the one making the negative claim here by claiming that the evidence is falsified or straight up propaganda.
I ask for your proof of this claim, you weasel out of it and deflect towards the dawkins argument over the invisible teapot/teacup. So yeah, Weaselling.
Either show your proof that their evidence is all bullshit, or your claim has no basis to stand upon. Mistrust without proof is not sufficient evidence with which to make a claim.
So once more time - Show me your evidence that they are lying, any other argument is evading the point and is therefore - Weaselling.
The default is not that "evidence" is always true until proven wrong. I'll give you another hypothetical. If I were to say I have evidence that says reincarnation is real, is it automatically real until you disprove it, or do I first have to prove it? As the public, we don't have access to the ice core specimens the government is in possession of--the ice core specimens they claim to have gathered this data from. Unless we have access to that, and we do not, then you cannot expect me to take their word for it, and the same goes for the rest of the 40% of America.
36
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:12:07 PM »
Not believe in a deity.
>Reincarnation
Even if they believe in reincarnation, as long as they don't believe in a deity or deities they are still technically atheist.
No they aren't.
By the literal definition of atheism they are.
Or rather, the western definition.
37
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:10:10 PM »
Because there isn't any evidence for global warming.
There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question.
And as for this part
'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'
The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?
Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.
But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.
And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.
You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?
You cannot prove a negative, duh. However there is plenty of warranted skepticism against government studies, which is why I'm not going to take their word for it. Until they can show me their evidence clearly laid out, I'm not just going to swallow it—like a sheep.
>Weaselling.
So if I were to ask you to disprove an invisible giant tea cup floating in space, and you told me it was my job to first prove it, then by your own logic you would be "weaselling," simply by taking the logical route.
38
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:06:03 PM »
Not believe in a deity.
>Reincarnation
Even if they believe in reincarnation, as long as they don't believe in a deity or deities they are still technically atheist.
No they aren't.
39
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:05:22 PM »
Not believe in a deity.
>Reincarnation
How is that relevant?
Religious people who believe in reincarnation don't believe in a deity.
40
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:04:10 PM »
Sandy Hook
I'm not sure if I would say it was orchestrated by the government, or if it even happened at all, but I would definitely say that it was committed by an anti-gun terrorist with the intent to restrict gun laws.
41
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:02:31 PM »
Because there isn't any evidence for global warming.
There is plenty of evidence, whether you choose to accept it as valid or not is the question.
And as for this part
'You cannot prove that their word is legit.'
The exact same thing can be said of those who claim it is a myth, what is to say that those who wish to maintain the status quo aren't lying for their paychecks?
Infact, it's not just paychecks but billions upon billions of dollars in the fossil fuel energy market. Which would and should be shut down hard if we'd actually like to see the human race make it to 2100 without living on a completely inhospitable planet.
But no, that's just the Solar Panel New World Order at work.
And if you wish to actually discuss this further then answer this question, without weaseling out of it either.
You make the claim that the evidence given forth by an overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet is false, I ask - Where is your proof that it is false? Where is your evidence to the contrary?
You cannot prove a negative, duh. However there is plenty of warranted skepticism against government studies, which is why I'm not going to take their word for it. Until they can show me their evidence clearly laid out, I'm not just going to swallow it--like a sheep.
42
« on: September 28, 2014, 08:56:59 PM »
Not believe in a deity.
>Reincarnation
43
« on: September 28, 2014, 08:43:56 PM »
Go ahead.
44
« on: September 28, 2014, 08:42:39 PM »
Reminds me of my weath: big.
>PSU alt detected
45
« on: September 28, 2014, 08:41:07 PM »
Being the gender that matches most closely to your biological sex (guy/girl - male/female),
46
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:34:00 PM »
Are you gay or something? I don't have a problem with gay people, I'd just rather not start a fight with one. Is there a mute option on this site?
47
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:32:29 PM »
I believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power.
Oh great, a falsified graph
Citation needed.
Sorry, but that's not it works bud. I'd like to see something that validates that the information in the graph is good. I'd like a citation for that.
How do we do that when you've quite clearly claimed that private institutions are "simply wrong" if they promulgate global warming?
Because there isn't any evidence for global warming. Sure, you can go ask a scientists for their "evidence," but who's to say they aren't lying to you for the sake of their paycheck/agenda? You cannot prove that their word is legit. Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
48
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:21:42 PM »
I bet a few are pronouncing Das Boot wrong too
I cringe when I hear the a sounding like in ass.
How is it supposed to be pronounced?
49
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:19:28 PM »
Ok newshit.
Don't be a dick.
Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.
You doubt his sincerity?
Highly.
I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx
My point is that if you want to discuss this, you cant just swiftly dismiss things because you don't like it. If you have a good reason to dismiss said chart, I'd love to see it.
How are you asking me to prove a negative? How about you first prove that the graph is valid?
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You seem to think that the chart is falsified, so I'd like to see the data that shows that the chart is incorrect.
So if I were to make a graph about the correlation between the consumption of chocolate in a given country and overall intelligence, it'd automatically be right until proven wrong? I think that's rather silly. Anyway, I already said why the graph isn't valid: it's manufactured by a government agency who benefits from people coming to the conclusion they want us to come to. As I already said, the government isn't a valid source of information.
50
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:14:40 PM »
Ok newshit.
Don't be a dick.
Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.
You doubt his sincerity?
Highly.
I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx
My point is that if you want to discuss this, you cant just swiftly dismiss things because you don't like it. If you have a good reason to dismiss said chart, I'd love to see it.
How are you asking me to prove a negative? How about you first prove that the graph is valid?
51
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:09:35 PM »
Ok newshit.
Don't be a dick.
Meh. I don't really care about "new" users who are just trolling.
You doubt his sincerity?
Highly.
I'm not trolling but does it really matter if I was? 40% of Americans have the same opinion. I am by no means being radical. If anything, you are for saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx
52
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:04:14 PM »
The government benefits by manipulating information. The "green" corporations do too. That isn't an assumption I'm making.
That isn't what I said. Are you stating that certain interests don't stand to benefit to preserve the status quote, that global warming isn't an issue?
The main driver behind global warming policy change is self benefit, the second driver is misinformation. I don't see how you can sit here and claim they're "simply wrong" without any supporting evidence or information for the idea that global warming is an elaborate hoax. Are there political motivations which cause fear-mongering and excessive claims? Absolutely. Is the environmentalist movement quite extreme at times? Certainly.
However, there are solutions to global warming which require neither extensive governmental controls or corporate welfare. Indeed, the IPCC states that the best weapon against climate change is a strong market economy. Nonetheless, it seems altogether prudent to treat the issue as if it were real, given the trade-off of not doing so.
Unfortunately, the global warming agenda isn't letting the market solve the issue, they're trying to use government power to control corporations and people. It wasn't long ago when someone could build a house without fifteen different government inspection workers coming to make sure that everything is "in line with regulations." Clearly they're just trying to get us buy certain products or services from "green corporations" who paid them off. The same goes for the auto industry. Point is, the global warming movement isn't harmless.
53
« on: September 28, 2014, 06:50:23 PM »
I believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power.
Oh great, a falsified graph
Citation needed.
Sorry, but that's not it works bud. I'd like to see something that validates that the information in the graph is good. I'd like a citation for that.
54
« on: September 28, 2014, 06:49:03 PM »
...nobody stands to benefit by manipulating information to fit the status-quo... The government benefits by manipulating information. The "green" corporations do too. That isn't an assumption I'm making. ...and the second is that scientists, the government and the renewable-energy industry are the only networks which stand for the environmentalist position. Well sure, there's also non-profits and educational institutions. For as far as non-profits are concerned, they may think they're doing the right thing, but they're simply wrong. For educational institutions, if they're public, they're technically part of the government. If they're private, not only is the teaching of global warming less common, but like the non-profits, they may think they're doing the right thing, but they're simply wrong. The main driver behind global warming policy change is self benefit, the second driver is misinformation.
55
« on: September 28, 2014, 06:42:58 PM »
I bet a few are pronouncing Das Boot wrong too
dass boot?
56
« on: September 28, 2014, 06:38:01 PM »
I believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power.
Oh great, a falsified graph from a government administration whose power increases if people come to the conclusion they're trying to get us to come to. Pro-tip: the government isn't a valid source.
57
« on: September 28, 2014, 06:33:22 PM »
I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy theory, but all the liberal white knights cry about how it is so I guess I'll just put it here. Anyway, I believe that global warming is an elaborate hoax scientists and the government use to expand their power. There's other interests at play too, like alternative energy corporations looking to make a profit, as well as anyone looking for some tax breaks. Probably the biggest scam there is right now. Still, I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy theory seeing as about half of the U.S. holds the same opinion. But oh-no! According to liberals, we're all stupid and uneducated, even despite the statistics that republicans hold more college degrees than democrats.
58
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:53:07 PM »
Growth in what diameter? You can't measure growth without time, and not just a short amount of time either because trends fluctuate. We're certainly passed a point where organized religion has had its greatest power and influence on society, but their amount of power is still a fluctuating variable you can't use to predict the future of fundamentalism. The only thing I can think of to help us predict the future of fundamentalism is the variable of education (in other words, the amount of educated people), which consistently grows, meaning it is predictable. If you can say that more non-religious education decreases the amount of fundamentalism to a meaningful degree, then you can predict that fundamentalism is on the decline. However, for that to be true, we actually have to be receiving more non-religious education, at least comparable to religious education, and I would argue that the majority of the world is not in that predicament. In the past couple of decades, fundamentalism has strengthened in the religious population just as the amount of religious people has declined in the overall population. So is fundamentalism increasing right now? Potentially, but it's hard to say. Will it continue to increase in the future? Impossible to tell.
59
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:38:04 PM »
Combine this with the fact that a representative from Ford came to one of my classes a couple weeks ago, and told the class that while they could pull a random guy off the street and train him to do their work, graduating from College makes them think you're more likely to do better at it.
Most engineering jobs aren't like that. If your job only requires a couple weeks worth of training, you're probably only getting paid 30 grand a year. Most engineers get paid just below six figures and there's a reason for it. No, you won't utilize everything you learned in college towards your job, not even everything you learned in your engineering courses, but don't underestimate the amount of knowledge and skill you develop (develop; not learn) during your four or six years in college.
60
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:00:00 PM »
Just go watch inspirational videos on Youtube.
|
Show Posts
