And here is an example of what is going on in many of these mosques since you're apparently fucking clueless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Notice all the moderate muslims raising their hands agreeing with death penalities for various infractions against their religion? Yeah. Maybe the real difference is that when they mean moderate, they don't mean something tolerant of western values but something rather where they'd be less inclined to actually kill them personally. But they sure as hell approve of it apparently.
And because you're pretty fucking thick, lets get some stats from the Pew polling service. I have other ones from both Pew and Gallup if you'd like: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/...
So you see, shithead? You're wrong. Suck it. Suck it long. Suck it hard.
As to accepting the degradation of the batteries, they use the same technology you'll find in laptops. Literally exact same cells in the case of Tesla. How long do laptop batteries last?
When my laptops are new, the new batteries last maybe 5 hours on a charge if I'm lucky. After two years it isn't uncommon for the batteries to last 3 to 2 hours. After four or five years the batteries are down to maybe half an hour. After six years perhaps 15 minutes.
Notice a pattern.
WE ALL OWN THIS TECHNOLOGY AND HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH IT YOU COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD.
Now, THAT is flamebait, fucktard. Learn the difference, you sniveling excretion from your mother's ass!:D
Now back on topic, as I've educated you as to what is and is not flamebait, we know how the tech works. It is the SAME technology. There is no way that these batteries are lasting 10 years or 8 years or even 100,000 miles seems unlikely. I have a car that I've owned since around 1994 and it still doesn't have 100,000 miles on it.
Anywho, if you want to learn the hard way as an early adopter then be my guest. Enjoy the suck.
Modern battery technology is shit. Everyone knows it which is why we keep drooling over reports about nano capacitors and air breathing batteries or micro generators or fuel cells. Modern batteries are shit. We all know it. You sitting here saying I am flamebaiting by pointing that out is completely fucking retarded.
Any one that has done any looking at all could find these statistics and better.
Pew and Gallup polls both agree that over 20 percent of the total islamic population of the planet is radicalized. It varies a bit. You have some areas where its over 90 percent and you have some areas where it drops down to about 15 percent. But 20 percent is pretty common.
One in fucking five. That is not a tiny minority.
I am not a fascist. I am just not a fucking retard like you. You WANT things to be better. And so you close your eyes and BELIEVE it because you just can't handle the truth.
I don't want this to be true. I really don't. But it is true. Accept it so that something can be done about it.
One: Without a model you have no reliable predictive capability. If you have a model, present it now or admit that you have no predictive capability.
Two: Your solutions were very limited. You excluded shifting industrial practices to less wasteful methods using non-coercive means. You are very comfortable with putting a gun in someone's face, cocking the hammer back, and saying "Do what I say or I'll kill you.". You fail to see that there are other ways to achieve goals besides violence. Forcing people is violence. I can list many other ways to get cooperation without violence and get effective solutions. Your solutions furthermore are not working. The Asian economies that are pumping out most of the CO2 these days are utterly ignoring you.
So not only is your coercive policy offensive and divisive. But it is also utterly ineffective because you lack the ability to force people outside your political sphere to do your bidding. You can't point a gun at the Chinese or the Indians. And as a result your policy fails. Policies that do not rely on coercion however can work without pointing a gun at someone's head. And that means they can achieve global adoption unlike your policies which will only work within your increasingly shrinking political sphere. After all, your policy relies on your ability to point a gun at MY head and get me to do what you want. How long did you honestly think that was going to work?
Your policy of coercion is failing everywhere. Even in Europe where you think you've won. Industries are buying loopholes and exemptions. Politicians are corruptible. This is what you used to gain their cooperation in the first place and the blade cuts both ways. You can offer them power and money. So can we.
Three: As to your notion that the left are cynical libertarians. That is nonsense. They're almost uniformly hardcore statists which means they are not libertarians. That's like calling Communists cynical capitalists. Its a meaningless comparison.
If I go with your definition, they're so cynical as to bear no resemblance to libertarians.
It is no mistake that these ideas are so strongly supported by the left. You get everything you've wanted for generations... long before the green revolution was even an idea. And you can do it in the name of saving the environment.
If the solutions to the global environmental policy were deregulation and unfettered capitalism... do you doubt that it would be the free market advocates pushing for the environment while your faction fought it?
You say you're cynical... I believe you. I think however you don't realize that I know exactly how cynical you really are. You are attempting to manipulate the situation for your profit and power.
That is cynicism... is it now?
Fourth: South America isn't on board. Asia isn't on board either. All they've done is give you face saving words but their actual commitments and actions show that they're not taking you seriously. Russia is full of people nostaligic for the old soviet union. I love how whenever leftists get embarressed by left wing groups they always call them right wing.
The National Socialists for example... They were completely left wing. But you couldn't handle that so you had to deem them right wing. Now you're trying to do that to groups that want to rebuild the soviet union?
Left wing to such as you apparently just means "any political group that reflects well on us." Which is of course very cynical of you.
The only thing that is surprising about the left is that they are so used to lying and tricking stupid people that they aren't very good at dealing with anyone that isn't a moron.
You need to have a different set of tactics when you deal with someone that knows precisely how cynical you really are, Comrade.
As they used to say in the Soviet Union, "The future is always the same, it is the past that keeps changing.";-)
You have made clear from your words that you want to play political games and have no interest in an honest discussion. I have noted that and have adjusted my posture towards you to reflect that decision.
The point was not to pass judgement on Christianity but rather to point out that the religion reformed where as Islam has not. It no longer acceptable in the 21st century for Islam to not reform and for its believers to mingle freely in the global culture if they view everyone else in the culture as someone they can kill at will without moral consequence.
A distinction without contextual relevance. The point is that Muslims would not be tolerated by Christians in the 21st century in societies that would have remained rabidly Christian if Christianity had not gone though a transformation.
Are people of other faiths permitted in Islamic countries? Notice the large Jewish, thriving Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist populations in Islamic countries. Right?
I mean, if there is anything Islamic society is known for... it is tolerance.
Right?
Do you have any doubt that if the West were full of the zeal of the 15th century that we'd even be having this discussion?
That is my point. Christianity reformed. Islam is overdue.
... One of the reasons these efforts to harmonize national education policy are foolish is that they limit what various schools are trying or can try.
I am all for any school trying something so long as the parents stand behind it.
If the parents want to try this "grit" concept... then go for it. It can't hurt so long as it is tried on a small scale.
Too often things go directly from some theory in academia to broad application without testing the concept empirically on the small scale. I am all for those that come up with new education ideas pitching them to individual schools and seeing if they work.
If they do, then broaden the application to a district or a state. And if that works well then suggest that other schools adopt the concept as well. But always let schools decide to ignore the new thing as well because they might be trying something entirely different.
Diversity is more then skin color and gender. It is also diversity of thought, ideas, and method. Let people do things their own way and judge them by the results. Concepts that are successful should earn respect and wider adoption. Concepts that are failures should earn shame and reduced application.
That said... there is a time limit here. There is a clock. Every time we get another atrocity it winds a spring... and once it is fully wound there are going to be sudden reactions.
Islam needs to take this seriously and it needs to move more quickly then it is moving now. The Hindus are already through with them. The Russians and Coptics are through with them. Many portions of Africa have absolutely had it with Islam. The Chinese are increasingly losing patience with Islam.
And in the West... our facility for martyrdom before our ideals is being tested. Every time westerns are killed in western cities by fanatical muslims and we in the west simply hold hands and sing songs... The people that were killed become martyrs to our faith that if we just believe in the goodness of people everything will work out. That is why we don't go on murder sprees to revenge such killings. We take a deep breath and hope. But that is being tested. And at some point... we'll get tired of it.
Islam for all its frothing at the mouth death threats is unable to survive a head to head fight with any major power in the world. Their threats should be proportional to their ability to deliver them.
It is really easy to find, guys. This is not conversial. It is just really really hard for modern western society to deal with because we really want to be tolerant.
But just because our ancestors were frequently intolerant and nasty doesn't mean we need to be door mats for insanity.
This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between being a nice guy and being a door mat.
I believe in being a nice guy. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe in trying to work for the common good of everyone. I believe in live and let live.
But I am not a fucking moron and I am not going to let someone just do whatever they want to me. I do not believe in being weak.
Islam needs to go through a reformation. Or if you prefer simply reform.
Lots of articles covering his statements on the issue if you don't like that one. I am not a bigot. I do not hate muslims. I do not think their faith or their culture is irredeemable.
However, it does need to go through reform. And contrary to what many foolish people have been saying mostly out of misplaced hope... is that extremism is extremely common in islam.
To say that most muslims are peaceful ignores that those that literally kill people are themselves a subset of a large number of people that approve of or encourage the killing. And that group is significant. It rarely falls below 20 percent in any muslim population and it can get as high as 90 percent in some countries. But it doesn't fall below 20 percent in any country. Look at the stats. I'd cite some now but people always say "oh that site is biased" even if I'm citing a Pew or Gallup poll.
So instead... YOU look it up. It is one easy google search away. It will come up on the first page and you can read it yourself. I don't like the facts of the matter anymore then anyone else. I wish things were better. I think they can be better. But the first step is acknowledging the problem. The denial makes reform impossible. Everyone denying that Islam has a problem with extremism is effectively ensuring that the extremism will continue. Stop it. Islam needs an intervention.
I don't respect the opinions of people that do not explain their opinion.
If someone says "I don't like that" there is no way to know why or if the opinion is justified. It is also somewhat cowardly or lazy because it gives no one an opportunity to argue against an opinion.
Either make your opinion clear in a falsifiable fashion or it can't be taken seriously.
I substantiated my position. I said why I held the opinion I did. You have not offered me that courtesy. Do so now, please.
""At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion. Majorities of Muslims in Jordan and Nigeria also favor these harsh punishments.""
I can show you respected stats showing that contrary to asshats like yourself, there is wide spread adoption of extremist ideology in Islam.
Do I feel Islam is irredeemable? No. I think it can be saved. But it will take an effort on Islam's part to reform.
People like you are not helping. You say there is no problem and we need do nothing. That is not only suicidal it is also counter productive. Islam should be pressured to do what they should have done on their own. Fix themselves and prepare their culture to coexist with the rest of the world. Absent that... it is only a matter of time before the other cultures of the world take steps to protect themselves from a toxic element. You likely don't credit this outcome. But it is building like a coiling spring. Every time something like this happens... it gets wound a little tighter.
If you want to preserve the status quo, you'd do well to see that the spring does not get wound any tighter. The outcome should the spring unravel are... unpredictable... and likely very bloody.
Catholic church went through a reformation otherwise they'd be burning Muslims at the stake.
Know your history before you pass judgement.
Look up the Reconquista. The Catholics drove the muslims out of Spain and through the inquisitional killed all muslims that did not convert to Catholicism on the spot.
Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church go back to that practice? Because really... having one religion acting in a pre modern context with no moderating reformation is unacceptable.
Either they reform or all other religions and ideologies are going to have to nuclear just to protect themselves. Shall we go back to crusifying people are you beginning to understand that this cannot be tolerated?
ISIS is literally crucifying children right now. In the name of Islam. Do you want me to show you rooms full of muslims agreeing that killing homosexuals, jews, and anyone that leaves islam is a good idea? I can do that.
Can you show me Christians or Buddhists or Hindus making the same claims? Look for them.
Your moral equivalency betrays an ignorance of the world.
As to how up to date I am, are you saying that AGW advocates are not presuming to link CO2 to the global climate or predict future climate conditions?
Because if they are no longer doing that, then you are correct and I am out of date. What is more, in that case, I would not be able to demand a model.
If however they are doing either of those things then you are obligated to provide a validated model.
Have they stopped making claims that require a model?
Do you have a mode for me?
Or are you attempting to cover for making claims you do not have evidence to substantiate?
Provide one of those three answers.
If you neither retract the ability to claim the links and predictions while also not providing the model then you are choosing option three by default.
If you want to make claims about a given thing effecting the a planetary atmosphere then you need a functional planetary model to make that claim.
Period.
Absent that, you have an opinion. Your acceptance of anything I say is irrelevant. Evidence is required proportional to your claims. Absent that, you have an opinion.
End of story.
I accept your opinion as your opinion. It however carries no more weight then simply your opinion until you can provide evidence proportional and contextual to the issue.
Again... you acceptance or recognition of anything is not relevant and neither is anything I say.
What I am saying are the known rules of science. You can feel or think whatever you like... this is what it is.
You can either provide the evidence as requested or by default your stance is recognized as an opinion. Perhaps an opinion with some interesting information on which to form additional inquiry but not a validated theory. And absent a validated theory... well... you can't speak with the same level of confidence and not be absurd at the same time.
These are choices for yourself to make. However, attempting to justify a position as science without going through proper scientific rigor is not acceptable.
Increase the density of any atmosphere and the temperature at ground level or at any fixed point in the atmosphere will increase proportionately.
The increase in CO2 is irrelevant to the mass of our atmosphere. We've not significantly added to the mass of our atmosphere.
What is more, to apply your CO2 theory to the larger atmosphere you need a functional model that works on a planetary scale. Absent that, you have supposition.
They're preaching hatred in this Mosques at this moment. Here someone will say I am exaggerating or generalizing.
I will show you statistics that cover millions of people as well as video recordings in english of sermons that encourage the killing of homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone that converts from Islam to anything else including atheism.
I am not exaggerating. Islam has a problem. The entire religion must go through a reformation.
That is the issue. Not trolls on the fucking internet.
You're only cost competitive with massive subsidization which means you're not cost competitive.
As to calling people "wingers"... should I refer to you by some derogatory term in an infantile attempt to wound your ego? Nope... Because I am better then you.;-) I'll just stay on topic and refrain such things.
As to comparing coal in the grid to solar or wind... coal is stable. It provides a constant and consistent supply of power. Neither solar nor wind do that. They spike up and down all over the place which means you have to backstop them with coal power plants. Which is exactly what we're seeing with every new solar and wind plant. Every one is backed up by a reliable power plant.
Big solar and wind farms are a dumb idea by people unable to think outside of a very limited box. They see only so far as replacing the existing producer with a new source. They don't see that the new sources require a transformation of the entire infrastructure.
Solar and wind should be installed at the point of use to reduce that point's consumption OR charge local batteries to gain grid independence.
The solar farm concept is wasteful and generally counter productive without onsite storage
There are some solar and wind plants that are grid compatible. I believe there is a solar plant that compresses an underground chamber with air. And power is fed into the grid by running that air through a turbine. The turbine produces a consistent flow of power all year round. THAT is a grid compatible solar farm.
If you are not producing a reliable even power curve then you do not belong on the grid. End of story.
As to nuclear power being expensive, it is only expensive because current decontamination practices are very expensive. If the plants are designed to be cheaply decontaminated then nearly all the cost vanishes.
I'm not wearing clown shoes, friend. I'm the only one of us wearing shoes at all. You're an ignorant savage with pretensions of sophistication. You're a monkey that thinks he's a man.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that isn't how it works.
Apparently the only time he's able to model accurately is distant futures that can't be validated. I asked for validated models.
You have yet to offer ONE.
Nah, you're just ignorant and intolerant of new ideas. Ironically, you're the bigot because you're prejudged me without understanding anything.
Allow me to open your beady little eyes:
That is the president of Egypt agreeing with me:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
Guess he's a bigot too, huh? Shit for brains :D
And here is an example of what is going on in many of these mosques since you're apparently fucking clueless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Notice all the moderate muslims raising their hands agreeing with death penalities for various infractions against their religion? Yeah. Maybe the real difference is that when they mean moderate, they don't mean something tolerant of western values but something rather where they'd be less inclined to actually kill them personally. But they sure as hell approve of it apparently.
And because you're pretty fucking thick, lets get some stats from the Pew polling service. I have other ones from both Pew and Gallup if you'd like:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/...
So you see, shithead? You're wrong. Suck it. Suck it long. Suck it hard.
Tell me about flame bait, Mr AC.
As to accepting the degradation of the batteries, they use the same technology you'll find in laptops. Literally exact same cells in the case of Tesla. How long do laptop batteries last?
When my laptops are new, the new batteries last maybe 5 hours on a charge if I'm lucky. After two years it isn't uncommon for the batteries to last 3 to 2 hours. After four or five years the batteries are down to maybe half an hour. After six years perhaps 15 minutes.
Notice a pattern.
WE ALL OWN THIS TECHNOLOGY AND HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH IT YOU COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD.
Now, THAT is flamebait, fucktard. Learn the difference, you sniveling excretion from your mother's ass! :D
Now back on topic, as I've educated you as to what is and is not flamebait, we know how the tech works. It is the SAME technology. There is no way that these batteries are lasting 10 years or 8 years or even 100,000 miles seems unlikely. I have a car that I've owned since around 1994 and it still doesn't have 100,000 miles on it.
Anywho, if you want to learn the hard way as an early adopter then be my guest. Enjoy the suck.
Modern battery technology is shit. Everyone knows it which is why we keep drooling over reports about nano capacitors and air breathing batteries or micro generators or fuel cells. Modern batteries are shit. We all know it. You sitting here saying I am flamebaiting by pointing that out is completely fucking retarded.
You're an idiot. --- Again, an actual flamebait.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/...
Any one that has done any looking at all could find these statistics and better.
Pew and Gallup polls both agree that over 20 percent of the total islamic population of the planet is radicalized. It varies a bit. You have some areas where its over 90 percent and you have some areas where it drops down to about 15 percent. But 20 percent is pretty common.
One in fucking five. That is not a tiny minority.
I am not a fascist. I am just not a fucking retard like you. You WANT things to be better. And so you close your eyes and BELIEVE it because you just can't handle the truth.
I don't want this to be true. I really don't. But it is true. Accept it so that something can be done about it.
They're using the same technology you find in laptop batteries for these new electric cars.
How long do those last?
Exactly. Speak when spoken to.
Find me a video please.
Mine will top it.
And then I'll cite internationally respected statistics that put your position to shame.
Do it. I can't wait.
30k especially when the batteries need to be replaced every few years at a cost of perhaps ten thousand dollars is a little steep.
One:
Without a model you have no reliable predictive capability. If you have a model, present it now or admit that you have no predictive capability.
Two:
Your solutions were very limited. You excluded shifting industrial practices to less wasteful methods using non-coercive means. You are very comfortable with putting a gun in someone's face, cocking the hammer back, and saying "Do what I say or I'll kill you.". You fail to see that there are other ways to achieve goals besides violence. Forcing people is violence. I can list many other ways to get cooperation without violence and get effective solutions. Your solutions furthermore are not working. The Asian economies that are pumping out most of the CO2 these days are utterly ignoring you.
So not only is your coercive policy offensive and divisive. But it is also utterly ineffective because you lack the ability to force people outside your political sphere to do your bidding. You can't point a gun at the Chinese or the Indians. And as a result your policy fails. Policies that do not rely on coercion however can work without pointing a gun at someone's head. And that means they can achieve global adoption unlike your policies which will only work within your increasingly shrinking political sphere. After all, your policy relies on your ability to point a gun at MY head and get me to do what you want. How long did you honestly think that was going to work?
Your policy of coercion is failing everywhere. Even in Europe where you think you've won. Industries are buying loopholes and exemptions. Politicians are corruptible. This is what you used to gain their cooperation in the first place and the blade cuts both ways. You can offer them power and money. So can we.
Three:
As to your notion that the left are cynical libertarians. That is nonsense. They're almost uniformly hardcore statists which means they are not libertarians. That's like calling Communists cynical capitalists. Its a meaningless comparison.
If I go with your definition, they're so cynical as to bear no resemblance to libertarians.
It is no mistake that these ideas are so strongly supported by the left. You get everything you've wanted for generations... long before the green revolution was even an idea. And you can do it in the name of saving the environment.
If the solutions to the global environmental policy were deregulation and unfettered capitalism... do you doubt that it would be the free market advocates pushing for the environment while your faction fought it?
You say you're cynical... I believe you. I think however you don't realize that I know exactly how cynical you really are. You are attempting to manipulate the situation for your profit and power.
That is cynicism... is it now?
Fourth:
South America isn't on board.
Asia isn't on board either. All they've done is give you face saving words but their actual commitments and actions show that they're not taking you seriously.
Russia is full of people nostaligic for the old soviet union. I love how whenever leftists get embarressed by left wing groups they always call them right wing.
The National Socialists for example... They were completely left wing. But you couldn't handle that so you had to deem them right wing. Now you're trying to do that to groups that want to rebuild the soviet union?
Left wing to such as you apparently just means "any political group that reflects well on us." Which is of course very cynical of you.
The only thing that is surprising about the left is that they are so used to lying and tricking stupid people that they aren't very good at dealing with anyone that isn't a moron.
You need to have a different set of tactics when you deal with someone that knows precisely how cynical you really are, Comrade.
As they used to say in the Soviet Union, "The future is always the same, it is the past that keeps changing." ;-)
You have made clear from your words that you want to play political games and have no interest in an honest discussion. I have noted that and have adjusted my posture towards you to reflect that decision.
*puts on war paint*
The point was not to pass judgement on Christianity but rather to point out that the religion reformed where as Islam has not. It no longer acceptable in the 21st century for Islam to not reform and for its believers to mingle freely in the global culture if they view everyone else in the culture as someone they can kill at will without moral consequence.
That was my point.
A distinction without contextual relevance. The point is that Muslims would not be tolerated by Christians in the 21st century in societies that would have remained rabidly Christian if Christianity had not gone though a transformation.
Are people of other faiths permitted in Islamic countries? Notice the large Jewish, thriving Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist populations in Islamic countries. Right?
I mean, if there is anything Islamic society is known for... it is tolerance.
Right?
Do you have any doubt that if the West were full of the zeal of the 15th century that we'd even be having this discussion?
That is my point. Christianity reformed. Islam is overdue.
... One of the reasons these efforts to harmonize national education policy are foolish is that they limit what various schools are trying or can try.
I am all for any school trying something so long as the parents stand behind it.
If the parents want to try this "grit" concept... then go for it. It can't hurt so long as it is tried on a small scale.
Too often things go directly from some theory in academia to broad application without testing the concept empirically on the small scale. I am all for those that come up with new education ideas pitching them to individual schools and seeing if they work.
If they do, then broaden the application to a district or a state. And if that works well then suggest that other schools adopt the concept as well. But always let schools decide to ignore the new thing as well because they might be trying something entirely different.
Diversity is more then skin color and gender. It is also diversity of thought, ideas, and method. Let people do things their own way and judge them by the results. Concepts that are successful should earn respect and wider adoption. Concepts that are failures should earn shame and reduced application.
Remind me how many Hindus are randomly killing people in the name of their faith throughout the world... I'd love to see those statistics.
I'm not funny. You're either an idiot or a liar. Pick one.
Yes, many in Islam are calling for reform.
That said... there is a time limit here. There is a clock. Every time we get another atrocity it winds a spring... and once it is fully wound there are going to be sudden reactions.
Islam needs to take this seriously and it needs to move more quickly then it is moving now. The Hindus are already through with them. The Russians and Coptics are through with them. Many portions of Africa have absolutely had it with Islam. The Chinese are increasingly losing patience with Islam.
And in the West... our facility for martyrdom before our ideals is being tested. Every time westerns are killed in western cities by fanatical muslims and we in the west simply hold hands and sing songs... The people that were killed become martyrs to our faith that if we just believe in the goodness of people everything will work out. That is why we don't go on murder sprees to revenge such killings. We take a deep breath and hope. But that is being tested. And at some point... we'll get tired of it.
Islam for all its frothing at the mouth death threats is unable to survive a head to head fight with any major power in the world. Their threats should be proportional to their ability to deliver them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is really easy to find, guys. This is not conversial. It is just really really hard for modern western society to deal with because we really want to be tolerant.
But just because our ancestors were frequently intolerant and nasty doesn't mean we need to be door mats for insanity.
This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between being a nice guy and being a door mat.
I believe in being a nice guy. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I believe in trying to work for the common good of everyone. I believe in live and let live.
But I am not a fucking moron and I am not going to let someone just do whatever they want to me. I do not believe in being weak.
Islam needs to go through a reformation. Or if you prefer simply reform.
Call it reformist islam.
Here is the President of Egypt basically saying the same thing I am saying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Lots of articles covering his statements on the issue if you don't like that one. I am not a bigot. I do not hate muslims. I do not think their faith or their culture is irredeemable.
However, it does need to go through reform. And contrary to what many foolish people have been saying mostly out of misplaced hope... is that extremism is extremely common in islam.
To say that most muslims are peaceful ignores that those that literally kill people are themselves a subset of a large number of people that approve of or encourage the killing. And that group is significant. It rarely falls below 20 percent in any muslim population and it can get as high as 90 percent in some countries. But it doesn't fall below 20 percent in any country. Look at the stats. I'd cite some now but people always say "oh that site is biased" even if I'm citing a Pew or Gallup poll.
So instead... YOU look it up. It is one easy google search away. It will come up on the first page and you can read it yourself. I don't like the facts of the matter anymore then anyone else. I wish things were better. I think they can be better. But the first step is acknowledging the problem. The denial makes reform impossible. Everyone denying that Islam has a problem with extremism is effectively ensuring that the extremism will continue. Stop it. Islam needs an intervention.
In what way was anything I said "dumb"?
I'll note that my opinion is mirrored by the president of Egypt who is himself not only a Muslim but a leader of Muslims.
So... who here is really stupid? Me for making a substantiated argument backed up by facts and the respected opinions of leaders within the culture.
Or some asshat AC too cowardly to use even his fake name?
Exactly. You're nothing.
I don't respect the opinions of people that do not explain their opinion.
If someone says "I don't like that" there is no way to know why or if the opinion is justified. It is also somewhat cowardly or lazy because it gives no one an opportunity to argue against an opinion.
Either make your opinion clear in a falsifiable fashion or it can't be taken seriously.
I substantiated my position. I said why I held the opinion I did. You have not offered me that courtesy. Do so now, please.
Bullshit.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/...
""At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion. Majorities of Muslims in Jordan and Nigeria also favor these harsh punishments.""
I can show you respected stats showing that contrary to asshats like yourself, there is wide spread adoption of extremist ideology in Islam.
Do I feel Islam is irredeemable? No. I think it can be saved. But it will take an effort on Islam's part to reform.
People like you are not helping. You say there is no problem and we need do nothing. That is not only suicidal it is also counter productive. Islam should be pressured to do what they should have done on their own. Fix themselves and prepare their culture to coexist with the rest of the world. Absent that... it is only a matter of time before the other cultures of the world take steps to protect themselves from a toxic element. You likely don't credit this outcome. But it is building like a coiling spring. Every time something like this happens... it gets wound a little tighter.
If you want to preserve the status quo, you'd do well to see that the spring does not get wound any tighter. The outcome should the spring unravel are... unpredictable... and likely very bloody.
Catholic church went through a reformation otherwise they'd be burning Muslims at the stake.
Know your history before you pass judgement.
Look up the Reconquista. The Catholics drove the muslims out of Spain and through the inquisitional killed all muslims that did not convert to Catholicism on the spot.
Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church go back to that practice? Because really... having one religion acting in a pre modern context with no moderating reformation is unacceptable.
Either they reform or all other religions and ideologies are going to have to nuclear just to protect themselves. Shall we go back to crusifying people are you beginning to understand that this cannot be tolerated?
ISIS is literally crucifying children right now. In the name of Islam. Do you want me to show you rooms full of muslims agreeing that killing homosexuals, jews, and anyone that leaves islam is a good idea? I can do that.
Can you show me Christians or Buddhists or Hindus making the same claims? Look for them.
Your moral equivalency betrays an ignorance of the world.
As to how up to date I am, are you saying that AGW advocates are not presuming to link CO2 to the global climate or predict future climate conditions?
Because if they are no longer doing that, then you are correct and I am out of date. What is more, in that case, I would not be able to demand a model.
If however they are doing either of those things then you are obligated to provide a validated model.
Have they stopped making claims that require a model?
Do you have a mode for me?
Or are you attempting to cover for making claims you do not have evidence to substantiate?
Provide one of those three answers.
If you neither retract the ability to claim the links and predictions while also not providing the model then you are choosing option three by default.
Your move.
You don't need to accept my statement.
If you want to make claims about a given thing effecting the a planetary atmosphere then you need a functional planetary model to make that claim.
Period.
Absent that, you have an opinion. Your acceptance of anything I say is irrelevant. Evidence is required proportional to your claims. Absent that, you have an opinion.
End of story.
I accept your opinion as your opinion. It however carries no more weight then simply your opinion until you can provide evidence proportional and contextual to the issue.
Again... you acceptance or recognition of anything is not relevant and neither is anything I say.
What I am saying are the known rules of science. You can feel or think whatever you like... this is what it is.
You can either provide the evidence as requested or by default your stance is recognized as an opinion. Perhaps an opinion with some interesting information on which to form additional inquiry but not a validated theory. And absent a validated theory... well... you can't speak with the same level of confidence and not be absurd at the same time.
These are choices for yourself to make. However, attempting to justify a position as science without going through proper scientific rigor is not acceptable.
Do as you will.
Any gas is a green house gas. Mass retains heat.
Increase the density of any atmosphere and the temperature at ground level or at any fixed point in the atmosphere will increase proportionately.
The increase in CO2 is irrelevant to the mass of our atmosphere. We've not significantly added to the mass of our atmosphere.
What is more, to apply your CO2 theory to the larger atmosphere you need a functional model that works on a planetary scale. Absent that, you have supposition.
They're preaching hatred in this Mosques at this moment. Here someone will say I am exaggerating or generalizing.
I will show you statistics that cover millions of people as well as video recordings in english of sermons that encourage the killing of homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone that converts from Islam to anything else including atheism.
I am not exaggerating. Islam has a problem. The entire religion must go through a reformation.
That is the issue. Not trolls on the fucking internet.
Do you have a source on that from something beside LeftistPoliticalHack.com?
You're only cost competitive with massive subsidization which means you're not cost competitive.
As to calling people "wingers"... should I refer to you by some derogatory term in an infantile attempt to wound your ego? Nope... Because I am better then you. ;-) I'll just stay on topic and refrain such things.
As to comparing coal in the grid to solar or wind... coal is stable. It provides a constant and consistent supply of power. Neither solar nor wind do that. They spike up and down all over the place which means you have to backstop them with coal power plants. Which is exactly what we're seeing with every new solar and wind plant. Every one is backed up by a reliable power plant.
Big solar and wind farms are a dumb idea by people unable to think outside of a very limited box. They see only so far as replacing the existing producer with a new source. They don't see that the new sources require a transformation of the entire infrastructure.
Solar and wind should be installed at the point of use to reduce that point's consumption OR charge local batteries to gain grid independence.
The solar farm concept is wasteful and generally counter productive without onsite storage
There are some solar and wind plants that are grid compatible. I believe there is a solar plant that compresses an underground chamber with air. And power is fed into the grid by running that air through a turbine. The turbine produces a consistent flow of power all year round. THAT is a grid compatible solar farm.
If you are not producing a reliable even power curve then you do not belong on the grid. End of story.
As to nuclear power being expensive, it is only expensive because current decontamination practices are very expensive. If the plants are designed to be cheaply decontaminated then nearly all the cost vanishes.
I'm not wearing clown shoes, friend. I'm the only one of us wearing shoes at all. You're an ignorant savage with pretensions of sophistication. You're a monkey that thinks he's a man.